Allahabad High Court
Ravi Verma vs State Of U.P. on 26 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:149845
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33305 of 2024
Ravi Verma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Satya Prakash Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in S.T. No.416 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.30 of 2024, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Shahganj, District Sonbhadra with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there are vague and omnibus allegations regarding demand of dowry. There is no specific demand of dowry in the FIR. The said fact stands fortified from the statement of PW-1 also. As such, the ingredients of Section 304-B I.P.C. are not fulfilled. Learned counsel has stated that the deceased and applicant had conducted a love marriage and after it both of them had married in Mukhya Mantri Samuhik Vivah Yojana, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 10.4.2024, as such, the fundamental rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stand violated. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned Trial Court. As per the said status report dated 5.8.2025, five witnesses have been examined.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the period of incarceration and the FIR being prompt instituted within two hours of the incident coupled with the fact that deceased had expired within the precincts of house of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
10. 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.
11. 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.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
August 26, 2025
Vikas Verma
