Dismissed¶14

Ram Milan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2025BAIL/3340/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected; dowry death; husband-applicant Ram Milan vs State of U.P.; death of wife by asphyxia due to ante-mortem drowning within seven years of marriage; no external injury on postmortem; plea of suicidal drowning due to depression disbelieved; Sections 85, 80(2), 351(3) BNS; Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act; Section 483 BNSS 2023; Case Crime No. 241 of 2024; Police Station Manjhanpur; District Kaushambi; FIR lodged 25.07.2024 by Gulzani Devi; applicant in jail since 06.08.2024; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 3340 of 2025; Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.; Order Date 7.4.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:49287.

What did the court decide?

It is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased; she died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house and the death is unnatural. ¶13

Ram Milan vs State of U.P. — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49287

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3340 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Milan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Babu Mishra,Ravindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Ram Milan , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 241 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2), 351(3) B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.

¶9

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 25.07.2024 by Gulzari Devi against the applicant and 03 other persons alleging therein that the marriage of her daughter Renu Devi was solemnized with the applicant on 16.10.2023. The accused persons were not happy with marriage and used to torture & trouble her. There was demand of a motorcycle, one gold chain and Rs. One lakh as dowry by the accused persons. Subsequently on 08.07.2024 the accused persons drowned her in a pond near the house wherein she died.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the allegation regarding demand of dowry is totally false and incorrect. Learned counsel has placed Anneuxre-7 to the affidavit in support of bail application being a pedigree of Saddu to show that the applicant is a distant relative of the deceased. It is submitted that since the applicant was a distant relative of the deceased there was no occasion for demand of dowry. It is submitted that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled

¶11

against the applicant and all the accused persons. While paragraph 12 of the affidavit it is submitted that the deceased was living in depression as the applicant was living in Mumbai and doing his work there and thus she committed suicide by drowning. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 and is in jail since 06.08.2024.

¶12

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

¶13

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. The postmortem examination although shows that the deceased was not found to have received any external injury all over the body but the cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to ante-mortem drowning. The reason as disclosed by the applicant in paragraph 12 of the affidavit regarding the deceased committing suicide does not transpire confidence. No ground for bail exists.

¶14

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 AS Rathore

¶17

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Milan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Milan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Omprakash Vishwakarma Alias Neetu vs State of U.P.

Naval Kishor @ Ravi vs State of U.P.

Dr. Prabhat Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Boby @ Raja Babu vs State of U.P.

Usha Devi vs State of U.P.

Aziz vs State of U.P.