Ram Dulari and Another vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

By means of the bail application the appellants have prayed to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal in Sessions Trial No. 276/2018: State of U.P. Vs. Satish Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 150/2017, Police Station Dalmau, District Rae Bareli, under Sections 304B/34 I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶15

The appellants are in jail since 25.05.2025.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the following grounds and the material aspects which were neglected from consideration or not properly appreciated by the learned trial court in accordance with law in the judgment impugned in the appeal could not be satisfactorily refuted by the learned A.G.A. from the record entitle the appellants to be enlarged on bail:

¶17

CRLA No. 1737 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased.

¶20

The applicants did not torture the deceased or demanded dowry. In fact the deceased and her husband were living separately in the village and also were ordinarily residing in Ludhiana.

¶21

The applicants are senior citizens aged about 70 and 73 years respectively.

¶22

The learned trial court erred in law by neglecting to consider the deposition of the three defence witnesses respectively as well as the Pariwar Register, which established that the applicants resided separately from the deceased and her husband. Further, as per the aforesaid testimonies, the deceased and her husband were ordinarily residing in Ludhiana as the husband of the deceased was working there in a factory. The Pariwar Register fully corroborates that the appellants lived separately from the deceased and her husband.

¶23

The primary facts to draw the presumption under Section 304 B were not established in the facts of this case.

¶24

The trial court misread the evidences and also neglected to consider material parts of the evidences which vitiate the trial court judgment.

¶25

The appellants do not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. 8. The appellants have sanguine hope of succeeding in the appeal.

¶26

There is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future.

¶27

Inordinate delay in hearing of the appeal will led to an indefinite detention of the appellants.

¶28

The appellants are not a flight risk. The applicants being a

¶29

CRLA No. 1737 of 2025 3

¶30

law abiding citizen had always cooperated with the investigation and had joined the trial proceedings. The appellants are not likely to reoffend.

¶31

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶32

Let the appellants- Ram Dulari and Sukhram be released on bail in the aforesaid sessions trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.

¶33

The realization of the fine shall remain stayed.

¶34

(Ajay Bhanot,J.)

¶35

September 4, 2025 Arvind

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Dulari and Another v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dulari and Another v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Smt. Nagma Nausheen vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Lko. Thru. Managing Director and 2 Others

Kuldeep Kumar vs U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Head Office Thru. Managing Director and 2 Others

Sharwan Kumar vs Chairperson Institute of Tool Room Training U.P. and Spl. Secy., Insti. Deve. Deptt. and Others

Manoj Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ram Murat Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Shyam Charan Srivastava and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another