Ram Murat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 445 of 2024, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Bhinga, District Shrawasti.

¶12

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 03.11.2024 against the applicant, his bother Ram Murat and two unknown persons, stating that the informant's son Harish Chandra had got married to daughter of the named accused person's sister. Wife of Harish Chandra had committed suicide by hanging and thereafter a settlement had been entered into. When the informant's son was returning after seeing a dance performance at about 01:30 a.m. on 28.10.2024, the accused persons had beaten him due to which he fell unconscious. The informant got this information in the morning from some villagers. His son was taken to the District Hospital Bhinga, Shrawasti, from where he was referred to the District Hospital Bahraich. During treatment, he regained consciousness and told about the incident to the informant and thereafter he died in the hospital. The FIR was lodged after performing last rites of the deceased. The post mortem examination report mentions numerous contusions on various parts of the dead body and some abrasions over left interior chest wall. The cause of death has been opined to be hemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem injuries.

¶13

BAIL No. 1569 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to old animosity.

¶16

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant disclosing his involvement in another case relating to the year 2007, in which he has been granted bail. However, a copy of the bail order has not been annexed with the supplementary affidavit.

¶17

The learned AGA has opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the informant has supported the FIR in his statement. He has further stated that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of another person Puttan, who had seen the injured lying on the road and who had given its information to the informant. The learned AGA has submitted that the allegations have been established during investigation and charge sheet has been submitted on 06.01.2025.

¶18

It is next submitted that the co-accused Chhotkau has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 7.4.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2894 of 2025. Hence, the present applicant claims parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.12.2024.

¶19

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the FIR itself states about an old animosity between the informant and the accused persons arising out of the incident in which wife of the deceased (niece of the named accused persons) had died in unnatural circumstance; the incident occurred in the night of 28.10.2024, the victim died during treatment in the hospital on 29.10.2024, the post mortem examination took place on 30.10.2024 and the FIR has been lodged on 03.11.2024 and there is no explanation for this delay; the deceased had suffered multiple injuries contusions and abrasions and there is no allegation/evidence of use of any weapon in commission of the offence; the incident has not been witnessed by any person; the co-accused Chhotkau has already been granted bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.12.2024 whereas the investigations already stands concluded, I am of the view that the

¶20

BAIL No. 1569 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime on the ground of parity.

¶23

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant- Ram Murat be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(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.

¶28

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

¶29

(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 in accordance with law.

¶30

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S.

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

September 3, 2025 Shravan

¶33

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

Ram Murat v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Murat v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vipin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ravi @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Brijesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Akash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rekha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Rinku Devi @ Radhika Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home