Rambabu vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶12

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.25 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Patwai, District- Rampur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the said offence. There is no averment as to what was demanded in dowry. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. There were no allegations of demand of dowry prior to the instant case and even there is no demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased person, as such, the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. are not fulfilled.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the trial is moving at a snail's pace as only two witnesses have been examined out of the 26 witnesses arrayed in the final report (charge-sheet). As such, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 20.3.2023 and he is

¶15

BAIL No. 634 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶19

This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned trial court. As per the said status report dated 30.1.2025, two witnesses have been examined.

¶20

The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909 , has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.

¶21

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that FIR is prompt instituted within four hours of the incident and the applicant being husband of the deceased person and the fact that trial is going on as already two witnesses have been examined, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected .

¶22

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702 , if there is no legal impediment.

¶23

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶24

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶25

September 8, 2025 Vikas Verma

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rambabu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambabu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Ashok Chandravanshi vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Ashif vs State of U.P.

Sachin vs State of U.P.

Devrati vs State of U.P.

Richard Verma @ Boby vs State of U.P.

Pramod vs State of U.P.