Allowed¶20

Ram Singh @ Ramu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2025BAIL/3561/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail allowed; FIR No. 25 of 2021; P.S. Mawai; District Faizabad/Ayodhya; Sections 498A, 304B, 506 IPC; Section 3/4 of D.P. Act (dowry); death by antemortem incised wound; custody since 02.02.2021; trial delay; 6 of 19 witnesses examined; no criminal antecedents; personal bond; two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Court No. 12; Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.; decided October 13, 2025; counsel Gulam Rabbani for applicant, G.A./AGA for State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

Release/enlargement of Ram Singh @ Ramu on bail in FIR No. 25 of 2021 on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to the three stated conditions. ¶20

Ram Singh @ Ramu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release/enlargement of Ram Singh @ Ramu on bail in FIR No. 25 of 2021 on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to the three stated conditions.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Ram Singh @ Ramu, in custody since 02.02.2021 in connection with FIR No. 25 of 2021 (Sections 498A, 304B, 506 IPC; Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mawai, District Faizabad/Ayodhya), is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Court's answer

The applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail because there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded at an early date, coupled with pre-trial detention of almost five years and the absence of any criminal antecedents.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed: the applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions (a) undertaking to attend hearings, (b) committing no similar offence, and (c) making no inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure to the Court or police, nor tampering with evidence.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3561 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 12; Pankaj Bhatia, J.) — Bail granted (October 13, 2025). Applicant Ram Singh @ Ramu, in custody since 02.02.2021 in FIR No. 25 of 2021, P.S. Mawai, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, under Sections 498A, 304B, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act; informant alleged his daughter, married to the applicant, had been killed despite sufficient dowry having been given, death per postmortem being due to antemortem incised wound. With only 6 of 19 trial witnesses examined, no criminal antecedents, no likelihood of early conclusion of trial and pre-trial detention of almost five years, the applicant was held entitled to bail; release ordered on a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to conditions barring commission of similar offences, inducement/threat/promise to persons acquainted with the facts, and tampering with evidence.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3561 of 2025

Ram Singh @ Ramu

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gulam Rabbani Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 12

¶10

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶12

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.25 of 2021, under Section 498A, 304B, 506 IPC & Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mawai, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶13

3. In terms of the FIR it was alleged that daughter of the informant was married to the applicant and sufficient dowry was also given, however, subsequently it was informed that the daughter has been killed. The cause of death, as per the postmortem report, is antemortem incised wound.

¶14

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in custody since 02.02.2021 and has no criminal antecedents. It is further argued that out of 19 witnesses, 6 witnesses have been examined.

¶15

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶16

6. Considering that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded at an early date coupled with the pre-trial detention undergone by the applicant of almost five years and that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed .

¶17

7. Let the applicant Ram Singh @ Ramu be released on bail in aforesaid

¶18

BAIL No. 3561 of 2025

¶19

¶20

FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶21

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶22

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶23

(c) 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.

¶24

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶25

October 13, 2025

¶26

nishant

¶27

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Singh @ Ramu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh @ Ramu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Shambhu Dayal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Ram Sakal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Nishar Ahmad Khan and 3 Others Vs Rajesh and 6 Others

Raj Kishor vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Vaidansh Singh vs Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow Thru. Registrar and 2 Others

Ravendra @ Ravindra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others