Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142909 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27397 of 2024 Applicant :- Sanjay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 274 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Tanda, District Rampur, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The allegations are per se false. The applicant is the husband of the deceased person. It is next stated that co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons, as such the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. 5. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.05.2022. The applicant has no criminal history. The Fundamental Rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant. The trial is at its conclusive end, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. This Court had called for a report regarding the status of trial and in compliance thereof, a report has been submitted by the Trial Court concerned dated 07.08.2025. As per the said report, the case is fixed for statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 08.08.2025. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, aforesaid judgements of the Supreme Court and also considering the fact that the applicant is the husband of the deceased person, who has died within the precincts of the house of the applicant and the trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 10. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 11. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements 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 :- 20.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad