Ramroop Rajbhar and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123533

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17682 of 2025

Applicant :- Ramroop Rajbhar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Priya Dubey,Ravi Jha,Sharadey Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ravi Jha, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicants- Ramroop Rajbhar and Dilbashi , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.49 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S.Sadat, District Ghazipur.

¶9

This matter has been nominated to this Bench vide order dated 16.7.2025 of Hon'ble The Chief Justice.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants argued as follows:

¶11

(i) The applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶12

(ii) The applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Manisha Devi.

¶13

(iii) The marriage of the deceased Manisha Devi was solemnized with Ajay Rajbhar, the son of the applicants on 9.12.2024.

¶14

(iv) General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant.

¶15

(v) As per postmortem examination report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.

¶16

(vi) Ajay Rajbhar, the husband of the deceased is in jail.

¶17

(vii) The applicants have no criminal history as stated in para 24 and are in jail since 6.4.2025.

¶18

(viii) The applicants are aged old aged persons aged about 75 years and 68 years respectively, para 21 of the affidavit in support of bail application has been placed before the Court.

¶19

(ix). The charge sheet has been submitted in the matter against the applicants and Ajay Rajbhar @ Anjya Rajbhar, copy of the same is annexed as annexure no.8 to the affidavit in support of bail application.

¶20

(x) The applicant no.2 is a lady and she is entitled to the benefit of 480 BNSS.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶22

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The husband of the deceased is in jail. Charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. The applicants are old aged persons. The applicant no.2 is a lady.

¶23

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Let the applicants- Ramroop Rajbhar and Dilbashi , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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:-

¶25

i) The applicants will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶26

ii) The applicants will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶27

(iii) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶28

(iv) The applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her/him presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023.

¶29

(v) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶30

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicants.

¶31

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.

¶32

The bail application is allowed .

¶33

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶34

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶35

Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Gaurav Kuls

¶36

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramroop Rajbhar and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramroop Rajbhar and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Prahlad vs State of U.P.

Anang Pal Singh Alias Anang Pal Singh Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ganesh Prasad vs State of U.P.

Vijaypal Kasana vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Bharatiya vs State of U.P.

Srikishun Kashyap vs State of U.P.