Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129490 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35238 of 2024 Applicant :- Dhirendra Singh @ Dhurendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Singh,Shiv Shankar Shukla,Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Mani Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Krishna Mani, learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, 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.172 of 2023, S.T. No.5292 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B, 316 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Khiri, District Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. Learned counsel has further stated that the trial is moving at a snail's pace and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 09.11.2023, as such, his fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. 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 counsel for the informant and learned State Law Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there are fourteen injuries sustained by the deceased person and she was pregnant at that time. The cause of death was ante-mortem smothering, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 7. As per the status report dated 28.07.2025 received from trial court concerned, four witnesses have already 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 promptness of FIR and the cause of death being smothering coupled with the fact that there are fourteen injuries on the body of the deceased person, 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 as early as possible 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 :- 1.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad