SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rampal vs State Of U.P. on 4 April, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Allahabad High Court

Rampal vs State Of U.P. on 4 April, 2024

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery


?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:58056

Court No. – 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 9356 of 2024

Applicant :- Rampal

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Kushwaha

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by a reasoned order on 9.5.2023. Relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

“In the present case, a young bride has died under other than normal circumstances within a short period of 10 months of her marriage. The post mortem report indicates that it is a case of asphyxia due to ante mortem hanging.

A reference has been made by learned A.G.A. for State upon the statement of father and brother of deceased wherein it appears that there are specific allegations against applicant in regard to demand of dowry and committing cruelty.

In view of above, considering all aspects of this case including above referred factors and that death was caused within premises of applicant, therefore, applicant has to discharge burden as provided under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act.

Accordingly, I do not find any ground to grant bail to applicant at this stage, hence, application is rejected.”

2. In pursuance of an order passed by this Court on 7.3.2024 learned Trial Court has submitted a status report dated 14.3.2024 indicating that out of proposed 14 prosecution witnesses despite repeated coercive measures summoned witness Vijay Pal Kushwaha has not appeared.

3. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

4. The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.74 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Muskara, District-Hamirpur.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 18.5.2022 i.e. for just less than two years and in case of conviction, minimum sentence is 7 years and till date not a single prosecution witness has been examined and it appears that it is nothing but to delay the trial. He lastly submitted that there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not been able to dispute the above referred status of trial and that despite coercive measure, summoned witnesses have not appeared.

7. I have considered the above mentioned rival submissions in referred factual and legal background and in view of established principle of jurisprudence of bail i.e ‘bail is rule and jail is exception’ as well as relevant factors for consideration of a bail application such as (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; (viii) danger of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail etc. and that an order to grant or not to grant bail must assigned reasons (see Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2022) 8 SCC 559, Manoj Kumar Khokar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr (2022) 3 SCC 501, The State of Jharkhand Vs. Dhananjay Gupta @ Dhananjay Prasad Gupta: Order dated 7.11.2023 in SLP (Crl) No.10810/2023 and Shiv Kumar Vs The State of U.P. and Ors: Order dated 12.9.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.2782 of 2023), therefore, I am of considered opinion that present is a fit case to grant bail to applicant mainly on following reasons:-

(i) Applicant is languishing in jail since 18.5.2022 i.e just less than two years and in case of conviction, minimum sentence is 7 years as well as taking note of status of trial and that despite coercive measures P.W.1 has not appeared before learned Trial Court.

(ii) Applicant has to given an undertaking that he will appear on each and every date before learned Trial Court and any application for exemption on vague grounds would be a valid ground for Trial Court to cancel his bail application forthwith.

8. Let the applicant-Rampal, 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:-

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

(ii) 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.

(iii) 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 82 Cr.P.C., 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 174-A I.P.C.

(iv) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months after release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

(v) Applicant has to appear on each and every date before learned Trial Court and any application for exemption of his appearance on vague ground could be a ground for cancellation of bail by learned Trial Court without even issuing notice.

9. 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.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.

Order Date :- 4.4.2024




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments


Copyright © 2024 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation