Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140758 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35655 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramesh Khare Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gopal Khare Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Gopal Khare, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Amit Kumar, 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.104 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Mauranipur, District- Jhansi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased person, as such, he has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant is an aged person and he has cooperated with trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. No external injury has been observed on the body of the deceased person. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 8.1.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the offence is of the year 2016 and the applicant absconded for about eight years and was arrested on 8.1.2024. During trial six prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is at its conclusive end, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 7.8.2025, six prosecution witnesses have been examined. 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 taking into consideration the status of trial as six witnesses have been examined to date and the applicant absconded for about eight years and also in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in X vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 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 :- 18.8.2025 Vikas/- (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad