HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33385 of 2024 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Durgesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. 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.34 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Durga Ganj, District-Bhadohi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the brother- in-law of the deceased person and he has nothing to do with the said offence. Applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The trial is at its conclusive end, as such, there is no likelihood of applicant tampering with the evidence. It is true that bail application of mother-in-law and father-in- law of the victim has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2025 but the case of the applicant is at different footing to that of co- accused person. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 30.07.2024 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 A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is at its conclusive end and is fixed for arguments, as such, he is not entitled for bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Vishwajit Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurag Shrivastava, Durgesh Kumar Pandey, G.A., Mantosh Singh Azad Bind .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. 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. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that trial is at its conclusive end and is fixed for arguments, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. 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. 10. 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. 33385 of 2024 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad