Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143190 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31734 of 2024 Applicant :- Anil Kumar @ Ajaypal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Ravi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, 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. 271 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Kyoladiya, District-Bareilly with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites about five years before her death. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs.2 lakh as dowry, thereby leading her to death on 09.12.2023 at about 10:00 a.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. Applicant is husband of the deceased persons. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 14.12.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. There is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence by the applicant and applicant is not at flight risk as he has no criminal history. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As per status report dated 04.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 28.02.2025 and the case is fixed for defence evidence. 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 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in light of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra), 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. 10. 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. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad