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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1027 of 2025

Ramesh Singh

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharm Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Iqbal Ali

¶5

Court No. - 12

¶6

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 27.5.2023 at about 7.00a.m., the accused applicant Ramesh Singh and co-accused Guddi Devi finding the grand mother of the informant alone came inside the house and have beaten the deceased and administered her poison and thus committed the murder of the deceased. When the informant came on the spot, he saw the accused applicant, after committing murder, going outside while wiping her body. The aunt of the informant Chhoti Devi and another have also seen him. The dead body of the grand mother of the informant was bearing marks of injuries.

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that statement of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and the allegation that the deceased was beaten and blood was oozing as well as the allegation that the hands of the accused and co-accused were stained with blood is falsified with the post mortem report wherein cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. Viscera has been preserved. In the FSL report, aluminium phosphaid poison has been found. No cut mark has been found on the body of the deceased. Statement of the prosecution witnesses have been falsified by the scientific evidence. The applicant has been falsely implicated due to property dispute.

¶10

The co-accused Guddi Devi on the same set of circumstances has been

¶11

BAIL No. 1027 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 19.9.2024. The applicant claims parity.The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 25.7.2024.

¶14

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶15

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, however, does not dispute the fact that the co-accused Guddi Devi has been granted bail by the Sessions Court.

¶16

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the co-accused, named above, has been granted bail, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶17

6. Let the applicant Ramesh Singh, involved in Case Crime No.649 of 2023 under sections 302, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mohammadi, district Lakhimpur Kheri, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(iii) 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.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open

¶22

BAIL No. 1027 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C. (now 269 BNS)

¶26

(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A I.P.C. (now 209 BNS).

¶27

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

September 15, 2025 kkb/

¶30

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramesh Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ramkhelawan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Kumar Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Naresh Kumar Agarwal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Lko. and Another