HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27725 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 1779 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C., Police Station - Surajpur, District - Gautam Budh Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have put his two minor daughters, aged about 6 & 2 years old, to death on 28.11.2019 at about 05:30 AM and even confessed the said offence before the informant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted 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 FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that there is no recovery whatsoever at the pointing out of the applicant. The trial is moving at a snail's pace and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future. The applicant is incarcerated for about five years as he is in jail since 30.11.2019, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Harish .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is at its conclusive end as already four witnesses have been examined. The applicant has committed brutal and heinous offence of murder of his two minor daughters, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgement of Supreme Court and taking into consideration the gravity of offence being a double murder of two daughters and also the status of trial being at its conclusive end as already four witnesses have been examined, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 11. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 12. 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. 13. 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. October 8, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 27725 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad