[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Ramutar vs State Of U.P. Though It Principal ... on 3 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:72375
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45241 of 2025
Ramutar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary (Home)
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Atul Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Rewti Raman Patel, Shravan Kumar Singh
With
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5255 of 2026
Brijesh Devi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary (Home)
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Atul Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Rewti Raman Patel, Shravan Kumar Singh
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. As both the bail applications arise out of same FIR, therefore, both the bail applications are being disposed off by a common order.
2. Heard Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rewti Raman Patel, learned counsel for informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State.
3. The instant bail applications have been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 412 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 85, 80(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Gulawti, District Bulandshahr during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits, applicants are in-laws of the deceased and on the basis of false allegation they have been made accused in the present matter.
5. He further submits, initially FIR of the present case was lodged on 12.09.2025 for offences under Sections 85, 115(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act but after the death of the deceased i.e. daughter-in-law of applicants Section 80(2) BNS has been added.
6. He further submits, actually deceased was having medical history and she was under continuous medical treatment and on 04.09.2025 she suddenly had episode of clenching of teeth along with fall followed by loss of consciousness and thereafter son of applicants had taken her to Rama Hospital but on 05.09.2025 informant after arrival told the son of applicants that now he will himself look after the deceased and thereafter she got discharged the deceased and on 12.09.2025 he lodged FIR of the present case on the basis of false allegation and on next date i.e on 13.09.2025 deceased died.
7. He further submits, during the post mortem report of the deceased her cause of death could not be ascertaining and her viscera was preserved and from her viscera report it reflects, deceased died due to consumption of Benzodiazepine. He next submits, Benzodiazepine is used for anxiety, insomnia, acute seizures and therefore it reflects, deceased either accidentally consumed the aforesaid drug or she intentionally due to her illness consumed the same in excess amount.
8. He further submits, in any case being in-laws of the deceased applicants are not responsible for her death. He fuhrer submits, even deceased died when she was in care of informant side and applicants side was not having any concerned with her treatment and medication.
9. He next submits, even being in-laws of the deceased applicants were not having any concerned with the family affairs of the deceased and even there is no specific allegation them.
10. He further submits, applicants are not having any criminal history. He further submits, father-in-law of the deceased is in jail since 25.09.2025 and mother-in-law of the deceased is in jail since 05.12.2025.
11. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
13. However, applicants are in-laws of the deceased and their daughter-in-law died within seven years of her marriage and there is also allegation of torture for demand of dowry but there is no specific allegation against applicants.
14. Further, it reflects, when condition of the deceased started deteriorating due to her illness then her husband i.e. son of applicants admitted her in the hospital from where on 05.09.2025 she was got discharged by the informant and thereafter informant on 12.09.2025 before her death lodged FIR of the present case but it appears, she died on 13.09.2025 therefore it appears, after discharge from the hospital on 05.09.2025 informant was providing for her medical treatment.
15. Further, from the viscera report of the deceased, it reflects, she died due to consumption of Benzodiazepine, therefore, possibility of consumption of overdose of the drug cannot be ruled out at this stage.
16. Further, it appears, when deceased died then she was along with informant and applicants are not having any criminal history and father-in-law of the deceased is in jail since 25.09.2025 and mother-in-law of the deceased is in jail since 05.12.2025.
17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on bail.
18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
19. Let the applicants - Ramutar and Brijesh Devi be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicants.
21. 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.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
April 3, 2026
AK Pandey
