Allowed

Ramu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Lko

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024/7603/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Lucknow allowed a bail application filed by a father-in-law accused of a dowry death case. The court noted no specific statements linked the applicant to harassment prior to the victim's hanging and found no criminal antecedents, ordering his release with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Ramu is released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each.

Ramu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Lko — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47817

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7603 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ramu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra,Jayveer Rajput Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

2 . The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.107 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304B, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Purwa, District Unnao.

¶8

3 . In terms of the FIR it was alleged that the daughter of the informant was married to the applicant on 02.05.2018 and sufficient dowry was given. Subsequently, the entire matrimonial family had killed her. The cause of death as per the postmortem report, is ante mortem hanging and apart from the ligature mark, no other injury is visible on the body of the deceased. The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased.

¶9

5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer.

¶10

6. Considering the FIR as well as the postmortem and the fact that there is no specific statement against the applicant to suggest that soon before her death, the victim was subjected to any physical or mental harassment in relation to any demand of dowry coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is languishing in jail since 04.06.2024, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶11

7. Let the applicant Ramu be released on bail in the abovesaid first information report number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶13

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶14

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 akverma

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Lko

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko.

Saroj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Ramu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Lko

Manju Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Chandan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.