Sohan Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2521 of 2026

¶3

Sohan Lal

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.	Home Deptt. Sectt.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mohd. Salman, Ana Ahamad, Sanat Singh	Fatma, Mukhtar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 13

¶6

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0690 of 2025, under Sections 103(3) BNS (old Sections 302 IPC), Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao, is seeking enlargement on bail during trial.

¶9

The brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated 30.12.2025, under the aforesaid section, has been lodged against two named accused persons including the present applicant, alleging therein that due to an old enmity, the named accused persons inflicted several blows on the head of the deceased by an axe and when he was taken to the hospital, he was declared dead.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the informant is not the eye witness to the alleged incident. From perusal of the statement of the real sister of the deceased, it appears that she is the eye witness to the alleged incident as in her statement, she has stated that while her brother Tej Bahadur was coming from the side of the shop of the Lala Lodh, she was also going in the same direction to call her daughter, the named accused persons, in front of the house of Mahadev, had started fighting with her brother and coaccused inflicted several blows on his head by an axe. As per the statement of the sister of the informant, the role of assault by an axe is not assigned to the present applicant.

¶11

Learned counsel has further submitted that the there is some enmity regarding an abadi land going on between the familes, so the applicant, the son of the co-accused has falsely been implicated in the present case. No

¶12

BAIL No. 2521 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

recovery of any weapon has been made from the possession of the applicant.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 02.01.2026.

¶16

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and going through the record of the case, prima facie, it appears that the informant is not the eye witness to the alleged incident. From the statement of Pushpa, the real sister of informant and the deceased, she appears to be the eye witness to the alleged incident and she has assigned role of inflicting blows by an axe to the co-accused and not to the present applicant; as also that no recovery of any weapon has been made from the possession of the applicant; it appears that there is admittedly enmity between the two families pertaining to some land, there may be a possibility of false implication. Thus, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant Sohan Lal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶22

(iii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶24

(v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶26

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶27

BAIL No. 2521 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶30

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶31

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶32

May 14, 2026 DiVYa

¶33

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sohan Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohan Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyam Pyare @ Shyam Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Jay Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Pankaj Kumar Pathak and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Taslim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ranvijay Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Sanjay Kumar Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.