Ramdas vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34629 of 2025

Ramdas

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akansha Verma, Deepak Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 64

¶5

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 550 of 2024, under Sections 108, 115(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Ghatampur, District- Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 11.10.2024. The first information report was lodged on 26.10.2024. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. According to the postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. As per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. In support of his submission, counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Nipun Aneja and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.654 of 2017) decided on 03.10.2024 and Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal Nos.2177-2185 of 2024 ) decided on 18.08.2025 . Investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 23.4.2025 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily

¶10

BAIL No. 34629 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶13

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that the first information report was lodged belatedly and as per the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than six months and after submission of the charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Ramdas , involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶15

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶16

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶17

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶18