Lalta Prasad vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

Lalta Prasad vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant Lalta Prasad to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; in case of breach of any condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move a bail cancellation application before this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Lalta Prasad, is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 738 of 2025 (Sections 191(2), 110, 115(2), 352, 126(2), 105, 140(1) BNS, Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly) during the pendency of trial, via an application under Section 483 BNSS.

Court's answer

Prima facie, the court found that the FIR rested on information said to have been conveyed by one Mukesh regarding four persons including the applicant assaulting an unknown person; however, in his statement under Section 180 BNSS Mukesh stated that he was not an eye witness to the incident.

Ratio / Principle

A vague role has been assigned to the applicant.

Key takeaways

The identically placed co-accused Nirdosh had already been granted bail by this Court (vide order dated 15.10.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31841 of 2025), and parity weighed in favour of release.ratio¶15
The applicant has no criminal antecedents.ratio¶15
The applicant had remained confined for more than one month and, with the charge sheet submitted, there was no hope of early conclusion of trial; moreover, the State brought no reasonable apprehension that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would tamper with the evidence, delay the trial or intimidate the witness.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BAIL GRANTED - Allahabad High Court (Court No. 64), Hon'ble Vivek Varma, J., December 1, 2025: Bail application under Section 483 BNSS of Lalta Prasad, in jail since 29.10.2025, for enlargement in Case Crime No. 738 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 110, 115(2), 352, 126(2), 105, 140(1) BNS, Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial. Court prima facie found the FIR was based on information the informant received from one Mukesh, who in his statement under Section 180 BNSS stated he was not an eye witness to the incident; a vague role was assigned to the applicant. Identically placed co-accused Nirdosh had already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31841 of 2025, and the applicant claimed parity. Learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer but could not satisfactorily dispute the submissions from the record. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, remained confined for more than one month, and after submission of the charge sheet there being no hope of early trial conclusion and no reasonable apprehension brought forth by the State of tampering with evidence, delaying trial or intimidating witnesses, the court, without commenting on the merits, held the applicant entitled to be enlarged on bail on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of appearance on dates fixed, non-tampering with prosecution evidence and non-pressurising of prosecution witnesses; breach entitles the prosecution to move a bail cancellation application before this Court.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42249 of 2025

Lalta Prasad

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K. Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 738 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 110, 115(2), 352, 126(2), 105, 140(1) BNS, Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly during the pendency of trial.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the first information report, the informant stated that he had received information from one Mukesh that four persons including the applicant, were assaulting an unknown person. However, in his statement under Section 180 BNSS, Mukesh stated that he was not an eye witness to the incident. It is contended that there is no independent witness to support the alleged incident. The first information report is based on unreliable information. The applicant has no role in the alleged incident. Further, identically placed co-accused Nirdosh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31841 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 29.10.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

Learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the first information report, the informant stated that he had received information from one Mukesh that four persons including the applicant, were assaulting an unknown person. However, in his statement under Section 180 BNSS, Mukesh stated that he was not an eye witness to the incident. A vague role has been assigned to the applicant. Identically placed co-accused Nirdosh has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedetns. Further, the

BAIL No. 42249 of 2025

2

applicant has remained confined for more than one month and after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant Lalta Prasad, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

December 1, 2025

S.S.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad