Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143174 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30471 of 2024 Applicant :- Naeem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sachin Malik Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. This is the second bail application. First bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.07.2024 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 15252 of 2024. 2. Heard Sri Indra Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sachin Malik, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 879 of 2023, U/S 498-A, 323, 506, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Loni, District - Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the informant's daughter (now deceased) in Mukhyamantri Samuhik Vivah Yojana, as such, there was no question of applicant demanding any dowry from her. The cause of death of the deceased person could not be ascertained,as such, her viscera was preserved. The viscera report is still awaited. 5. Learned counsel has also stated that 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 languishing in jail since 25.10.2023, as such, he is incarcerated for about one year ten months. He has 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. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the FIR is prompt as it was instituted within a reasonable time. The deceased has expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant. The applicant being her husband is the main accused person, as such, he 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 on 22.07.2025. As per the said report, three witnesses have been examined to date and the trial is now fixed for argument on 28.07.2025. 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, the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the trial is at its conclusive end as it is fixed for argument, 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 Apex 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 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad