Allowed

Ramratan @ Ramsaran v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2019BAIL/54329/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant, the father-in-law of the deceased, held to be a fit case despite absence of criminal history and allegations of suicide and no specific role assignment.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail with a personal bond and two sureties upon furnishing specific undertakings regarding tampering with evidence, intimidation, and appearance.

Ramratan @ Ramsaran Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54329 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ramratan @ Ramsaran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased.The FIR of the alleged incident was lodged against nine persons including the applicant making general allegation. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. There was no dispute of demand of dowry. The applicant has not harassed or tortured the deceased. At the time of the alleged incident the applicant was living separate from the deceased and her husband. In postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased has been shown asphyxia due to antemortem hanging. Three injuries have also been found on the body of the deceased with the ligature mark. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. The deceased has committed suicide herself. The deceased was not happy with her marriage. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of the husband of the deceased, who is in jail. There is no criminal history of the applicant and is in jail since 15.7.2019.

¶7

Per contra, learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant Ramratan @ Ramsaran involved in Case Crime No. 302 of 2019 under Sections 498A, 304B, IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Banda, District Shahjahanpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

The applicant will not tamper with the evidences.

¶11

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate with the trial.

¶12

The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

¶13

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.12.2019/A.

Ramratan @ Ramsaran v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramratan @ Ramsaran v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Maya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Govind Singh Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Wajid Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Sahu @ Pradeep Vs State of U.P.