HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29882 of 2024 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vimal Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Bachan Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Chandra Prakash Kushwaha, learned counsel for the informant, 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.97 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kabrai, District-Mahoba with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about more than a day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The prosecution version stands changed subsequently about nine days of the incident whereby it was stated that applicant was drunkard and had subjected the deceased to cruelty, but there is no injury on the body of the deceased person except the ligature mark. The cause of death is Asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 04.04.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant and two witnesses Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bachan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandra Prakash Kushwaha, G.A. Pradeep Kushwaha .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) have already been examined during trial, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 6. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 20.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned, one witness has been examined. 7. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 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. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the one witness has already been examined coupled with the fact that deceased expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. 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. 11. 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. September 1, 2025 Karan BAIL No. 29882 of 2024 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad