Liladhar @ Lalta Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143391

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26944 of 2025

Applicant :- Liladhar @ Lalta Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Kushwaha,Thakur Prasad Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Kushwaha and Sri Thakur Prasad Dubey, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 198 of 2024, under Sections 85, 80(2) of BNS and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station - Kyodadiya, District - Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶10

Learned counsel has also stated that the informant and another witness have been examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in court and have not supported the prosecution story. They have completely resiled from their earlier statement given to the I.O. and the allegations of the FIR. The witnesses have been crossexamined by the public prosecutor after declaring them hostile. There is no possibility of conviction in the present case under the circumstances.

¶11

Learned counsel has also stated that that the cause of death of deceased has been found to be asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.10.2024. Criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained by means of supplementary

¶12

affidavit filed today in court. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶13

Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

The Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 has categorically stated 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.

¶15

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶16

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground of criminal antecedent.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, delay in lodging the FIR and also considering the aforesaid judgements of Supreme Court coupled by the fact that the applicant being the father-in-law of the deceased person and the witnesses have turned hostile, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant- Liladhar @ Lalta Prasad , 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.

¶19

i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶20

iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date:- 21.8.2025 Siddhant

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Liladhar @ Lalta Prasad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Liladhar @ Lalta Prasad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases