HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29097 of 2024 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Ms. Sarita Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gopal Khare, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer 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.104 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mauranipur, District- Jhansi with the prayer to enlarge her on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased person and she has nothing to do with the said offence. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons including the applicant. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no other injury observed on the body of the deceased person except a ligature mark. The FIR itself is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant being a lady is not responsible for absconding as she was taken by her husband. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 8.1.2024 and she is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gopal Khare Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt Asha Khare .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant was absconding since 2016 and was apprehended in the year, 2024 only after she was declared a proclaimed offender and prize was declared on her. As such, she is not entitled for bail. 8. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 7.8.2025, six witnesses have been examined. 9. 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. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the period of abscondance of the applicant i.e. about eight years and also the status of trial as already six witnesses have been examined, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 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 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. (Krishan Pahal,J.) September 4, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 29097 of 2024 2 Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad