Allahabad High Court

RAM SHARANversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The bail application was dismissed because the prompt FIR, forensic evidence of insecticide, and seriousness of the charges outweighed the applicant's arguments for release.

Summary

The applicant, Ram Sharan, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No.44 of 2024) under Sections 80(2), 85 of the B.N.S. Act and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act, alleging a delayed FIR and lack of criminal history. The High Court noted that the FIR was filed promptly, the victim died within the applicant's house, and insecticide was found in the victim's viscera, indicating serious allegations. The applicant argued that he had been incarcerated for over a year and that three witnesses had already testified, contending the case was a false implication related to dowry. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the gravity of the evidence and the need for the applicant to remain in custody. The Court, after considering the promptness of the FIR, the forensic evidence, and the ongoing trial, found the bail application devoid of merit and rejected it, directing the trial court to expedite the trial.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the applicant's claim of FIR delay as a ground for bail
Whether the presence of insecticide in the victim's viscera justifies denial of bail
Whether the duration of pre‑trial detention (over one year) creates a presumption in favor of bail
Whether the trial's progress (examination of three witnesses) affects the bail decision

Legislation cited

B.N.S. Act — s. 80(2), 85
D.P. Act — s. 3, 4

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Section 80
Section 85
D.P. Act
forensic evidence
dowry death
false implication
pre‑trial detention

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15276 of 2026

Ram Sharan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Savita
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.28 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Savita, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Jai
Kishan Chaurasia, 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 Case Crime
No.44 of 2024, under Sections 80(2), 85 BNS, 2023 and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police
Station Devrahat, District Kanpur Dehat with the prayer to enlarge him on
bail.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one
was rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2025 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.29171 of 2025 and the following order was
passed:

"1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.

2. Heard Sri Hari Nath Chaubey, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned

A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.44 of

2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Devrahat,

District Kanpur Dehat with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about one day
BAIL No. 15276 of 2026
2

and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Insecticide has been found in the

viscera report of the deceased person. The father of the applicant had admitted the

deceased to the hospital. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in

jail since 25.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is

released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground

that the FIR is prompt and the deceased had expired within the precincts of the house of

the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the

promptness of FIR and the deceased having expired within the precincts of house of the

applicant coupled with the fact that insecticide has been found in the viscera report of the

deceased person, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

7. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

8. 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.

9. 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."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that, as a new ground, it is the
period of incarceration on which the applicant is entitled to bail, as he is in
jail since 25.11.2024 and about one and a half years have passed since his
incarceration. Three witnesses have already been examined. The statement
of PW-1 indicates that she was married off to the applicant without her will.
Even the statement of PW-2, the father of the victim, indicates that he did
not have any conversation with his daughter, which suggests that there was
no demand for dowry; as such, it is a clear-cut case of false implication. The
applicant is ready to cooperate with the trial, and in case he is released on
bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail
BAIL No. 15276 of 2026
3

application.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
that three witnesses have already been examined and the trial is proceeding
at a reasonable pace, coupled with the fact that insecticide was found in the
viscera of the deceased, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the
applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly,
rejected.

8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, as early as possible, in accordance with law,
if there is no legal impediment.

9. 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.)
May 6, 2026
(Ravi Kant)

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…