Manoj Gond vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 9190 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Manoj Gond vs State Of U.P. on 26 August, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5537 of 2025
 
Court No. - 65
 
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri R.P. Patel, 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.310 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Sahatwar, District-Ballia with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as he is a poor person belonging to a labour class. It is further argued that the trial is moving at a snail's pace. The cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, Viscera was preserved, however, the report of Viscera is still awaited. There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 26.12.2023 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. have vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial concerned. As per the status report dated 01.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned six witnesses have already been examined.

7. 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.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the FIR is prompt and the deceased expired within the precincts of the house of the applicant coupled with the fact that trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

10. 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.

11. 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.

August 26, 2025

Karan