Allowed

Ramautar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023BAIL/21366/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application allowed. The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, Ramautar, in a case involving dowry death allegations where the deceased died within 7 years of marriage. The court noted no specific allegations against the applicant and found the death circumstances suspicious, allowing his release on bond without prejudice to future trial merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the applicant on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Ramautar Vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:139664

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21366 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ramautar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Prabodh Dubey,Ashok Kumar Giri,Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate submits that yesterday he filed his power on behalf of the applicant in the Registry of this Court and thereafter, his name could not be shown in the cause list.

¶7

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Tanay Kumar, learned AGA, for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.174 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ahirauli Bazar, District Kushinagar during pendency of the trial.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and his family members including his son, i.e., husband of the deceased and according to the FIR, marriage of the son of applicant was performed with deceased on 22.5.2021 but after marriage applicant and his family members harassed her for Rs.One Lac and on 15.7.2022 applicant informant the informant that something happened to the deceased, i.e., her daughter and when she arrived at her matrimonial home then found that she had died.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is the father-in-law of deceased and he was not having any concerned with the family affairs of deceased and deceased committed suicide due to the reason that three days before a dead child was born to her and this fact itself has been mentioned in the FIR.

¶11

He further submits that even post mortem report suggests that deceased died due to hanging but subsequently totally on the basis of false story of demand of dowry and harassment, applicant was also implicated along with the husband of deceased in the present case.

¶12

He further submits that applicant in the present matter is in jail since 28.3.2023.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that applicant is the father-inlaw of deceased and there is no specific allegation against him and the post mortem report suggests that deceased died due to ante mortem hanging and even as per informant, about three days before a dead child was born to the deceased.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶15

Although, daughter-in-law of applicant died within 7 years of her marriage under abnormal circumstances in her matrimonial home and there is also allegation of demand of dowry but applicant is the father-in-law of deceased and there is no specific allegation against him.

¶16

Further, even from the perusal of the FIR of the present matter it appears that 3 days before a dead child was born to the deceased and, therefore, the arguments advanced by the

¶17

learned counsel for the applicant cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage, especially when the autopsy report of the deceased also suggests that she died due to ante mortem hanging.

¶18

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicant- Ramautar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶25

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

¶26

no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶27

Order Date :- 14.7.2023 SKM

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramautar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramautar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naseem Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramnayan Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Gore Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Baliram @ Buletin Vs State of U.P.