Gajram Singh vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36992

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4072 of 2025

Applicant :- Gajram Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Sahu,Praveen Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Although Sri Arvind Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant has appeared in the matter but he has rendered no assistance to the Court. The Court decides the bail application with the assistance of learned A.G.A. who has ably assisted the Court.

¶8

Heard Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material on records.

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Gajram Singh , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0313 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80, 115 (2), 352, 351(2), 351 (3) B.N.S. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Islam Nagar, District Budaun.

¶10

The facts of the matter are that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased Smt. Kiran. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Ravindra Kumar the son of the applicant on 03.05.2022. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and all the accused persons. The postmortem examination of the deceased shows that she has received a ligature mark and one contusion on the right side of face, near right ear but the cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. In so far as the contusion is concerned, the same did not contribute to her death. The charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted against the applicant, Smt. Munni Devi (mother-in-law), Ravindra the husband whereas three other named accused namely Anita, Surajwati and Pushpa have been exonerated. The investigation has thus concluded. The applicant is stated to be about 67 years of age as per paragraph 24 of the affidavit. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 26 of the affidavit and is in jail since 09.11.2024.

¶11

Per contra , learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail. He points out that the husband of the deceased is in jail. It is argued that the applicant is named in the first information report along with other accused persons and there are

¶12

allegations against him.

¶13

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. General and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and other accused persons in the first information report. The husband of the deceased is in jail. The cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging.

¶14

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.

¶15

Let the applicant- Gajram Singh , 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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 B.N.S.S., 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 B.N.S., 2023.

¶20

(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 B.N.S.S., 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 B.N.S., 2023.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

The bail application is allowed .

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 17.3.2025 AS Rathore

¶26

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶27

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

Gajram Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajram Singh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mangal Alias Om Prakash Keshari and Another vs State of U.P.

Bhola Nath and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Dr Durgvijay Bharti vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kalawati vs State of U.P.

Bharat Singh and Another vs State of U.P.

Sushant Kumar vs State of U.P.