Dismissed¶21

Lallu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2026BAIL/5041/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Harvir Singh, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5041 of 2026, Lallu v. State of U.P. — bail during trial rejected on April 10, 2026. Case Crime No. 228 of 2025, P.S. Rajapuri, District Chitrakoot, under Sections 109(1), 110, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352 of B.N.S.; applicant in custody since 16.12.2025; C.T. Scan of injured Mahesh Kumar showed subdural hematoma, intracranial contusions, sutural diastasis and parietal bone fracture; Court not inclined to enlarge applicant on bail.

What did the court decide?

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, and perusing the record including the C.T. Scan report of the injured Mahesh Kumar, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail during the trial; the bail application is rejected. ¶21

Lallu Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5041 of 2026

¶3

Lallu

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pushpraj Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 70

¶7

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant in the Court today is taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶10

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 228 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 110, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352 of B.N.S., P.S. Rajapuri, Distrcit-Chitrakoot, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. He next submitted that in the FIR only general allegation of assaulting the victim has been made against five named and some unknown persons. He further submitted that the applicant was not named in the first information report. His name as an accused in the present case surfaced for the first time during investigation. No incriminating article or material has been recovered either from the applicant or on his pointing out. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 16.12.2025 and has no criminal antecedents to his discredit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶12

On the other hand, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted the accused applicant has played an active

¶13

BAIL No. 5041 of 2026

¶14

¶15

role in the alleged incident, which is evident from the statement of eye witness Rakesh Kumar, brother of the informant (Annexure-SA5). He further submitted that in the said incident the injured Mahesh Kumar sustained injuries, thereafter C.T. Scan examination of the injured was performed. The report of C.T. Scan reads as under:-

¶16

*** Subdural hematoma in right parieto-occipital region crossing the suture and extending to the left parietal region with mass effect to the adjacent brain parenchyma.**

¶17

*** Hyperdense intracranial contusions in left high fronto-parietal region with surrounding edema.**

¶18

*** Sutural diastasis of sagittal suture posteriorly**

¶19

Fracture of parietal bones in superior aspect.

¶20

*** Soft tissue extra calvarial hematoma in left fronto-parieta region.**

¶21

After having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record, including C.T. Scan report of the injured Mahesh Kumar, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail during the trial, hence this bail application is rejected.

¶22

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶23

April 10, 2026

¶24

Faridul

¶25

Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lallu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lallu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Praveen Jain Vs State of U.P.

Heeralal @ Vijay @ Bandar vs State of U.P.

Tausif vs State of U.P.

Geeta vs State of U.P.

Nilesh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Praveen Jain vs State of U.P.