Ramladdoo @ Ramchander vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39183 of 2025

Ramladdoo @ Ramchander

.....Applicant(s)

Versus
State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijay Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the applicant Ramladdoo @ Ramchander, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 49 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Golhaura, District Siddharthnagar.

¶10

Learned counsel for the State submits that he has received instructions for which time was granted to him vide order dated 10.11.2025.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant argued as follows:

¶12

(i) The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶13

(ii) The applicant is the devar of the deceased Maya.

¶14

(iii) The marriage of the deceased Maya was solemnized with Harishchandra brother of the applicant on 29.05.2023.

¶15

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

¶16

(v) Postmortem examination report shows the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging with single ligature mark.

¶17

(vi) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 25 of the affidavit and is in jail since 09.09.2025.

¶18

BAIL No. 39183 of 2025

¶19

2

¶20

(vii) Co-accused Rajaram the father-in-law, Vindrawati the mother-in-law and Harishchandra the husband of the deceased have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 31.08.2024 and 10.07.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 32051 of 2024 (Rajaram and another Vs. State of U.P.) and 47355 of 2024 (Harishchandra Vs. State of U.P., copy of the orders are annexed as annexure 6 respectively to the affidavit.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that co-accused Rajaram the father-in-law, Vindrawati the mother-in-law and Harishchandra the husband of the deceased have been granted bail.

¶22

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the devar of the deceased. The cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Co-accused Rajaram the father-in-law, Vindrawati the mother-in-law and Harishchandra the husband of the deceased have been granted bail.

¶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 applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Let the applicant Ramladdoo @ Ramchander , 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 applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶26

ii) The applicant 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 applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings

¶29

BAIL No. 39183 of 2025

¶30

3

¶31

against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶32

(v) The applicant 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 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶33

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

¶34

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 applicant to prison.

¶35

The bail application is allowed .

¶36

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

¶37

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶38

December 1, 2025 M. ARIF

¶39

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramladdoo @ Ramchander v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramladdoo @ Ramchander v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kripal Singh vs State of U.P.

Akash vs State of U.P.

Smt Santoshi Devi vs State of U.P.

Dudhnath vs State of U.P.

Sunita Devi vs State of U.P.

Ramsumantar vs State of U.P.