Allowed

Ramniwas Ram and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2023BAIL/7085/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by co-accused persons accused of a dowry death case. The court found it a fit case for bail at this stage, ordering their release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants Ramniwas Ram and Smt. Prabhawati Devi on personal bond and two sureties each.

Ramniwas Ram and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7085 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Ramniwas Ram And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tahira Shabnam,S. Kamal Akhtar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri S. Kamal Akhtar Khan, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Aditya Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicants with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 56 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Nagsar Halt, District Ghazipur, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the marriage of the co-accused Arun Kumar was solemnized with the daughter of the informant Priyanka Kumari (now deceased) about one year before her death. The applicants are the father-in-law and mother-inlaw of the deceased. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicants along with coaccused Arun Kumar are stated to have subjected the daughter of informant to cruelty for a demand of dowry and as such leading her to death on 06.12.2022.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have nothing to do with the said offence. Learned counsel has further stated that when the said incident occurred, it was the applicants who had taken the victim to the hospital where she was declared brought dead and as such they are the bonafide persons. Learned counsel has also argued that the FIR is delayed by about six days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The FIR has been instituted after due deliberations and

¶10

consultations which is evident from the fact that the first informant is one of the panch witness of the inquest proceedings recorded on 06.12.2022 and the other family members of the deceased are also the witnesses to the said inquest proceedings.

¶11

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicants have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. There is no likelihood of trial being concluded in near future. The applicants are languishing in jail since 14.12.2022 having no criminal history to their credit, deserve to be released on bail. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicants on the ground that the onus on the applicants to lodge the FIR of the incident but they were not doing so. Furthermore, at the time of the incident, only the applicants were present in the house and as such, the onus lies upon them to explain as to how the daughter of the informant had died by hanging.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, stage of trial, complicity of accused, severity of punishment and also considering the fact that the informant is also a panch witness, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for releasing the applicants on bail.

¶14

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed . Let the applicants Ramniwas Ram and Smt. Prabhawati Devi , involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶15

(i) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶17

(iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

Order Date :- 15.2.2023 Siddhant

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramniwas Ram and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramniwas Ram and Another 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

Surendra @ Kali Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P.

Viresh Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaurav Vs State of U.P.

Amit Adjariya Vs State of U.P.