Allahabad High Court
Rampravesh Chauhan vs State Of U.P. on 18 July, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116846
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14900 of 2025
Applicant :- Rampravesh Chauhan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mamta Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Deepak Pandey,G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.
2. Heard Ms. Mamta Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.631 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80 B.N.S. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rasra, District Ballia, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by more than eight hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the cause of death could not be ascertained, as such, viscera was preserved.There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.01.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. LearnedState Law Officerhas vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that aluminum phosphide poison was found in the viscera of the deceased, as such, she might have been administered sulphas tablets.
7. Learned State Law Officer has further stated that there is a contusion of 4 cm x 3 c.m. on anterior aspect of left arm of the deceased person, although that is not the cause of her death.
8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the said injury may be caused by any fall or collision with any hard object.
9. The Supreme Court in the judgment of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. The State of Bihar, 2022(6) SCC 599 has categorically opined that the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and there are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused person,and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant-Rampravesh Chauhan, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 18.7.2025
(Ravi Kant)
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
