Rajaram vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23127

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1235 of 2025

Applicant :- Rajaram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Saurabh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.B. Maurya, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.140 of 2024, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra during pendency of the trial.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged on 27.10.2024 against applicant and his family members through an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 02.05.2024 and according to the FIR marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant in the year 2016 and after marriage applicant and his family members tortured her for dowry and in this regard earlier on 28.07.2022 a case was lodged against him for offence under Section 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act.

¶10

It is further mentioned in the FIR that on 31.12.2024 informant received an information that applicant and his family members administered poison to her and were taking her to the Government Hospital and when informant arrived at the hospital then doctor informed him that the poison has spread in all over the body and she was referred to Varanasi but on the way she died.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however applicant is husband of the deceased but on the basis of false allegation of demand of dowry he has been made accused in the present matter along with his other family members.

¶12

He further submits, deceased died on 30.01.2024 but FIR of the present case was lodged on 27.10.2024 i.e. after nine months through an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and even application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 02.05.2024 i.e. after three months and therefore there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and it appears after three months a false story has been cooked up by the informant and thereafter FIR of the present case was lodged.

¶13

He next submits, except the bald and verbal allegation of torture due to demand of dowry there is no cogent evidence of abetment on record.

¶14

He further submits informant in the FIR even could not disclose what was demand of dowry.

¶15

He further submits, actually some matrimonial dispute arose between both the sides and due to this reason earlier FIR was lodged against the applicant and his family members for offence under Section 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act and thereafter deceased consumed poison and died.

¶16

He further submits that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 13.12.2024.

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA however, opposed the prayer for bail and submits applicant is husband of the deceased and earlier also an FIR under Section 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act was lodged against him and his family members therefore it cannot be said that there is no evidence of abetement against him but he could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged after nine months through an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C and even application under section 156 (3) CrPC was moved after three months, therefore there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR of the present case.

¶18

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

¶19

However, applicant is husband of the deceased and as per allegation due to his torture his wife i.e. deceased committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. Record also suggest that earlier also an FIR was lodged against the applicant and his family members for offence under Section 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act but record also suggest that FIR of the present case was lodged after nine months through an application under section

¶20

156 (3) Cr.P.C and even application under section 156 (3) CrPC was moved after three months, therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR of the present case and no plausible explanation has been given by the infromant in this regard.

¶21

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 13.12.2024.

¶22

Further, law is settled bail application should not be dismissed for punitive purpose..

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Let the applicant - Rajaram 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:-

¶26

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

¶27

(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.

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶29

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.

¶30

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 no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶31

Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Neeraj

¶32

Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajaram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Ashish vs State of U.P.

Ram Naresh Sahu vs State of U.P.

Ibrahim Ali vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Prasad Rajak vs State of U.P.

Imran vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home U.P.(Lucknow)

Kamaluddin Alias Kamal vs State of U.P.