Allahabad High Court
RAM MILANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMIT GOPAL
Holding
The court held that no fresh ground exists and bail cannot be granted, thereby rejecting the application.
Summary
The High Court considered the second bail application filed by Ram Milan under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 in a dowry death case (Crime No. 241 of 2024) involving the alleged drowning of his wife, Renu Devi. The applicant argued that the death was a suicide, that he was not present at the scene, and that there were no fresh grounds since his first bail plea had been rejected. The State contended that the case is a dowry death, that the prosecution witnesses, including the first informant, had already supported the charge, and that the trial court must evaluate the evidence, not the bail court. The court noted that the same arguments had been raised earlier, no new material was presented, and the trial record showed corroborative testimony against the applicant. Consequently, the court found no basis to grant bail and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 in a dowry death case.
- Whether the second bail application raises any fresh ground for relief.
- Whether the characterization of the death as suicide versus dowry death impacts the bail decision.
- Whether the trial court's evidentiary findings preclude the grant of bail at this stage.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 180, 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 351(3), 483, 80(2), 85
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- suicide
- Section 483
- criminal procedure
- trial evidence
- fresh ground
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21415 of 2025
Ram Milan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Yadav, Rahul Kumar,
Rajesh Maurya, Rakesh Kumar Bharti,
Shivam Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 76
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Pratik Dhar Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul
Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel
for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application
of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2025
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3340 of 2025 (Ram
Milan Vs. State of U.P.).
4. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed
by the applicant- Ram Milan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in
connection with Case Crime No. 241 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2),
351(3) B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present case is
a case of suicide and not of dowry death. It is further submitted that the trial
in the present matter has started in which the first informant Smt. Gulzari
Devi has been examined as P.W.-1 who has stated identically in her
examination-in-chief as per her statement under Section 180 BNSS but the
cross-examination would go to show that the applicant was not involved in
the present matter. It is submitted that at the time of the incident the
applicant was no present at the place of occurrence and was living in
BAIL No. 21415 of 2025
2
Mumbai. It is further submitted that the trial in the present matter is pending
since long and the testimony of witnesses is not being recorded diligently
and thus looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 06.08.2024 he
may be granted bail. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para
34.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the
submissions and prayer for bail and submitted that the present case is a case
of dowry death in which the allegations are of committing death of Smt.
Renu in her matrimonial house by drowning her in a pond. It is submitted
that all the argument as raised were considered at the time of decision of the
first bail application and in so far as the appreciation of the statement of
P.W.-1 is concerned, the same has to be done by the trial court at the
appropriate stage and appreciating the said statement and giving a finding
about it in a bail application would not be in the fitness of things. It is
submitted that there is no new & fresh ground in the present bail application.
7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that this is second bail application of the applicant. The
first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order
dated 07.04.2025, the same reads as under:-
"1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
3. This bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the applicant- Ram Milan,
seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 241 of 2024, under Sections
85, 80(2), 351(3) B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Manjhanpur, District
Kaushambi.
4. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 25.07.2024 by Gulzari Devi against the
applicant and 03 other persons alleging therein that the marriage of her daughter Renu Devi was
solemnized with the applicant on 16.10.2023. The accused persons were not happy with marriage and
used to torture & trouble her. There was demand of a motorcycle, one gold chain and Rs. One lakh as
dowry by the accused persons. Subsequently on 08.07.2024 the accused persons drowned her in a pond
near the house wherein she died.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present
case. It is submitted that the allegation regarding demand of dowry is totally false and incorrect. Learned
counsel has placed Anneuxre-7 to the affidavit in support of bail application being a pedigree of Saddu to
show that the applicant is a distant relative of the deceased. It is submitted that since the applicant was a
BAIL No. 21415 of 2025
3
distant relative of the deceased there was no occasion for demand of dowry. It is submitted that general
and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and all the accused persons. While
paragraph 12 of the affidavit it is submitted that the deceased was living in depression as the applicant
was living in Mumbai and doing his work there and thus she committed suicide by drowning. The
applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 and is in jail since 06.08.2024.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the
applicant is the husband of the deceased. The deceased died within seven years of marriage in her
matrimonial house. The death is unnatural. The postmortem examination although shows that the
deceased was not found to have received any external injury all over the body but the cause of death was
opined as asphyxia due to ante-mortem drowning. The reason as disclosed by the applicant in paragraph
12 of the affidavit regarding the deceased committing suicide does not transpire confidence. No ground
for bail exists.
8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence,
the bail application is rejected.
9. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
8. The trial in the matter is going on in which the statement of four witnesses
have been recorded. All the said four witnesses have supported the
prosecution case. Even the first informant has supported the prosecution
case. The argument as advanced have already been advanced earlier and
were considered at the time of decision of the first bail application. No
ground for bail is made out.
9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not
find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant pressed the Court for
expediting the trial. No such circumstance has come forward for this Court
to pass such an exceptional order of placing the trial at a higher platform
than other cases. The said prayer thus stands rejected.
11. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
October 1, 2026
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…