Ramdutt Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.454/2025, Under Section 85, 80(2) BNS (Section 498A, 304-B I.P.C.) and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Atrauli, District - Hardoi, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶10

The brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R. dated 13.12.2025 has been lodged under Section 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against four named accused persons including the present applicant, who is the father-inlaw of the deceased, alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Lavlesh Pal on 10.02.2022 and there is a girl child from the said wedlock. After marriage the daughter of the informant was leading normal life in her Sasural. On 12.12.2025 the applicant and other family members after killing the daughter of the informant hanged her from the ceiling fan for the reason that the informant has decided to give a four wheeler car in the marriage of his younger daughter, which was not given to Lavlesh Pal, husband of the deceased.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the F.I.R. it is admitted case of the informant that her daughter was leading a normal life in her Sasural. There was no allegation of any dowry demand and even there was no allegation for demand of four wheeler by any of the accused persons including the applicant.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that as per story narrated in the F.I.R. and in the statement of the witnesses, the accused persons had killed the daughter of the informant and hanged her from ceiling fan but as per post-mortem report there was no injury either external or

¶13

BAIL No. 2623 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

internal on the body of the deceased. The cause of death is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the co-accused Gulaba @ Rajpati, the mother-in-law of the deceased has already been granted bail by this court vide order dated 09.04.2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2560 of 2026 and the case of the applicant is squarely covered by same as the allegations and the material against the co-accused Gulaba @ Rajpati is the same as alleged against the present applicant, copy of the bail order of co-accused Gulaba @ Rajpati has been provided during the course of arguments, which is taken on record.

¶17

It is further submitted that it is a case of suicide and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana (2014) INSC 214 has held that there are several cause or reasons for a woman to commit suicide.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that by making general and omnibus allegation, whole of the family has falsely been implicated in the present case including the present applicant, who is the father-in-law of the deceased.

¶19

It is further submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab & Anr. passed in SLP (Crl.) No.3995 of 2022 dated 26.11.2024, wherein it has been observed that in matrimonial disputes exaggerated version of the incident are reflected by making allegation against all the family members and the Court should be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with such complaints. In the said judgement the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 741 , has also been relied, wherein it has been held that the mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the tendency of over implication.

¶20

On the other hand learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer but he is unable to dispute the submission raised by the learned counsel for applicant as also the fact that co-accused having similar.

¶21

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, prima facie , it is found that in the F.I.R. there is no averment regarding dowry demand made by the applicant and other family members at any point of time. The reason for alleged killing of daughter of the complainant by the applicant along with family members is that while fixing the marriage of his younger daughter the complainant (father of the deceased) had decided to

¶22

BAIL No. 2623 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

give a four wheeler car which was not given at the time of the marriage of the deceased, but in the statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS he improvised the story and said that there was demand of four wheeler. The said fact was also known to the informant at the time of lodging the F.I.R. but there was no whisper of the same. The allegation made against all the family members are vague, general and omnibus in nature and the ocular evidence alleged by the informant does not corroborate with the post-mortem report i.e. as per post mortem report there was no injury either external or internal on the body of the deceased, the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging, therefore, it is a fit case in which the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed .

¶26

Let the applicant Ramdutt Pal 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:-

¶27

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶28

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶29

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶31

(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶32

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶33

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶34

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶35

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶36

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the

¶37

BAIL No. 2623 of 2026

¶38

4

¶39

case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶40

April 16, 2026 DiVYa

¶41

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶42

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramdutt Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdutt Pal v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

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

Similar cases

Asharam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pankaj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Om Prakash Tiwari and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Patirakhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mukesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mukesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another