Ramu vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36632 of 2025

¶3

Ramu

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kamalendra Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

List revised.

¶8

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

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Ramu , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 202 of 2024, under Section 115(2), 351(2), 352, 85, 80(2) B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Matsena, District Firozabad.

¶10

The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 29.09.2024 by Raghuvanshi against the applicant and 04 other persons alleging therein that his daughter Sarita was married to Ramu (the applicant) around 18 months ago. After marriage the accused persons used to torture, assault and harass her for dowry and there was demand of a Splendour motorcycle from her and she was sent to her maternal house after which assurance was given to give a motorcycle and then on 30.08.2024 she went back to her matrimonial house. The accused persons torture & harass her and on 29.09.2024 murdered her.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although the applicant is the husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the deceased

¶12

BAIL No. 36632 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

committed suicide and died which is suggestive from the postmortem examination report, wherein, a single ligature mark was found on her body and the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. It is submitted that the trial in the present matter is going on in which the first informant Raghuvanshi Singh was examined as P.W.-1 who in his cross-examination did not support the prosecution case. It is submitted that Sunita wife of Raghuvanshi Singh was examined as P.W.-2 who did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. It is further submitted that Santosh Singh the cousin brother of the deceased was examined as P.W.-3 before the trial court who also did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. It is submitted that looking to the statement of the said three witnesses the implication of the applicant is without any credible evidence. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 21 and is in jail since 30.09.2024.

¶15

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house and there are allegations of demand of dowry, harassment and torture by the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is submitted that trial in the matter is going on in which Raghuvanshi Singh the first informant was examined as P.W.-1 before the trial court who has supported the case in full in his examination-in-chief later on in his crossexamination he did not support the same but the same is for the trial court to appreciate it at the appropriate stage in the trial. It is submitted that although P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile but looking to the statement of P.W.-1 who supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief the matter deserves to be examined by the trial appreciate at the appropriate stage.

¶16

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of the deceased. There is an allegation of demand of dowry, torture and harassment by the applicant and other co-accused persons. The deceased died unnaturally within seven years of marriage in her matrimonial house. P.W.-1 Raghuvanshi Singh the first informant in his examination-in-

¶17

BAIL No. 36632 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

chief supported the prosecution case. Although subsequently in his cross-examination he did not support the prosecution case but the same is for the trial court to appreciate it at the appropriate stage in the trial. The other two witnesses although did not support the prosecution case but looking to the statement of P.W.-1 who supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief, the said statement is to be appreciated in the trial by the trial court.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

November 3, 2025 AS Rathore

¶23

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶24

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

Ramu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu 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

Similar cases

Ashish Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Shashi Kapoor vs State of U.P.

Ramkesh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Sansari vs State of U.P.

Satish vs State of U.P.

Smt. Barfi vs State of U.P.