Allahabad High Court
Ramramaiya Das vs State Of U.P. on 28 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124024 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21464 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramramaiya Das Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshman Singh,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arimardan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Ramramaiya Das, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 88 of 2024, under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kotwali Jalaun, District Jalaun.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 1.4.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The first informant while lodging the FIR had only said that one Gajendra had informed him that applicant slept with the deceased in the last night. But there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of incident the applicant was heavily intoxicated and as such, was not in a position even to know what he is doing and therefore, the case would not fall under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 (2) IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that if the whole prosecution story is considered on its face value, the offence cannot travelled beyond Section 323, 324 or 325 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant may be provided benefit of Section 85 and Section 86 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that witness Gajendra Singh has not levelled any specific allegation against the applicant for committing murder of the deceased, but only raise suspicion upon the applicant. He has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that as per post mortem report, as many as, 12 injuries are reported to be inflicted upon the person of deceased and cause of death has been shown due to ante mortem injures and the same has been received from hard and blunt object. From the spot, PAN Card, Aadhar Card, ATM Cards and beard hair belonging to the applicant were found from the spot. Even the applicant was nabbed, hiding himself in a straw shop, which was located at a little distance of place of occurrence. Learned AGA further submits that at the time of arrest, blood stained cloths were worn by the applicant. Learned AGA submits that blood stained brick was also recovered from the spot.
I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
Perusal of the record reveals that from the place of occurrence certain articles mentioned above belonging to the applicant were recovered from the spot. The defence taken by the learned counsel for the applicant with regard to Section 85 IPC, the Court opines that Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides an exception to criminal liability for acts done by a person who is incapable of judgment due to intoxication, provided that the intoxication was involuntary. Essentially, if someone is intoxicated against their will or without their knowledge, and that intoxication renders them incapable of understanding the nature of their act or that it is wrong or contrary to law, they are not held criminally responsible for the actions they commit while in that state.
Further, Section 86 of the IPC provides that in cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
But in the case at hand, the applicant had taken drinks voluntarily with the deceased in excess and the said fact is admitted by the applicant himself in his confessional statement, in the opinion of the Court, the provisions of Sections 85 & 86 IPC would not be applicable to the case of the applicant.
So far as, contention with regard to lodgment of the applicant under Section 302 IPC is concerned, the Apex Court in the case (Nanhe versus the State of Uttar Pradesh), Criminal Appeal No. 2791 of 2023 decided on 21.11.2023 arising out of an incident resulting in accidental death held the appellant at the relevant time, being heavily intoxicated and not in a position even to know what he was doing, proceeded to dismiss the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellant and the order of the High Court convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC, observed as under:
"25. It may be true that the deceased may have been killed accidentally by the appellant in the state of intoxication but there is no iota of evidence to establish that due to intoxication he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that the act which he was doing or likely to do was so dangerous so as to cause death of any person. Thus, in the absence of such evidence, coupled with the fact that it is not the case of the appellant that he was administered intoxication without his knowledge or against his will, the provision of Section 86 IPC would not be applicable and he would not be entitled to reduction of sentence from 302 IPC to one falling under Part-II of Section 304 IPC. "
In view of the aforesaid contentions and citation the submission of applicant is turned down.
Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, allegation levelled against the applicant and detailed analysis of the documents brought on record, but without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence to the applicant in the present bail application.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)