Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128759 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24357 of 2025 Applicant :- Fool Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Durg Vijay Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.532 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites about five years before her death. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of motorcycle as dowry, thereby led her to death on 04.10.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about eighteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is the husband of the deceased person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that four witnesses have been examined and the brother of the deceased has been examined in court and he has admitted the fact during cross- examination that there was no demand between the parties regarding dowry before her death. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 06.10.2022 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt and the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 8. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that four witnesses have been examined and the trial is moving on coupled with the fact that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the FIR has been instituted within reasonable time, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 10. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 11. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 12. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad