Ramsumantar vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39193 of 2025

Ramsumantar

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anuj Srivastava, Manas Tripathi	Devaang Savla,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 66

¶6

HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

¶7

List revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Anuj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Prakash Shukla, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant- Ramsumantar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 329 of 2025, under Section(s) 80(2), 85 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at P.S. Kandhla, District- Shamli.

¶10

The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 31.7.2025 by Charanpal Singh against the applicant Ramsumantar (husband), Krishnapal (father-in-law) and Sulochana (mother-in-law) alleging therein that Smt. Anshika Panwar(Shikha) was married to Ramsumantar the applicant in January 2020 and the accused persons due to their demand of dowry used to harass her physically and mentally. He received an information on 31.7.2025 that his daughter has died. The accused persons have murdered his daughter. A report be lodged and action be taken.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant although is husband of the deceased but he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that in so far as the allegation regarding demand of dowry is concerned, the same is false and concocted inasmuch

¶12

BAIL No. 39193 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

as the F.I.R. is silent regarding the actual demand of dowry by the applicant and the other accused persons. It is further submitted that subsequently in the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. he for the first time states that there was a demand of Rs.10 lakh and a bullet motorcycle as dowry. It is submitted that the first informant has stated in his statement that his daughter was not having any child regarding which he was getting her treated and even her husband Ramsumantar was also getting her treatment done. It is submitted that the same was the reason for the deceased to commit suicide. It is further submitted that the present case is a case of suicide which is also suggestive from the post mortem examination report wherein the doctor found a single ligature mark on her body and cause of death opined as asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It is argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents as stated in para- 34 of the affidavit and is in jail since 11.8.2025.

¶15

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

¶16

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is husband of the deceased. The First Information Report is silent regarding the allegation of actual demand of dowry. However, the first informant subsequently in his statement recorded during investigation states of demand of Rs.10 lakh and a bullet motorcycle as dowry. He further states that the deceased was unable to bear a child regarding which he was getting her treated and even her husband Ramsumantar was also getting her treated. The post mortem examination report wherein the doctor found a single ligature mark on her body and cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging.

¶17

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.

¶18

Let the applicant- Ramsumantar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each

¶19

BAIL No. 39193 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶23

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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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 84 BNSS, 2023 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 against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 BNS, 2023.

¶26

(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 351 BNSS, 2023. 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 269 BNS, 2023.

¶27

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

¶28