Allahabad High Court

LALMAN PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail and granted bail subject to conditions.

Summary

Lalman Prasad applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 23 of 2026) involving alleged offences under Sections 333, 351(3) and 64(1) of the Indian Penal Code. He claimed he was falsely implicated, noting a two‑month delay in filing the FIR and that the allegation of circulating an indecent photograph pertained only to a co‑accused, not him. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the applicant's submissions, including his clean criminal record and willingness to cooperate with the trial. The court examined the delay in the FIR, the absence of any specific charge against the applicant for the photograph, and the overall circumstances. Finding that the applicant had established a sufficient case for bail, the court granted bail with a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The order clarified that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge's independent assessment of the case.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the FIR and lack of specific allegation against the applicant justify granting bail.
Whether the applicant's claim of innocence, clean criminal record, and cooperation with trial are sufficient grounds for bail.
Whether imposing standard bail conditions is appropriate in the circumstances.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 333, 351(3), 64(1)

Subjects

bail
delay in FIR
false implication
Indian Penal Code
Section 333
Section 351(3)
Section 64(1)
criminal procedure
surety
court conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13063 of 2026

Lalman Prasad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rayoof Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 75 out of 259)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is
taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Rayoof Ali, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.P.
Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 23 of 2026, under Sections 333,
351(3), 64(1) BNS, Police Station Dharmshinghwa, District Sant Kabir
Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by two months and there is no explanation of the said delay
caused. The victim is major obviously, as she is a married lady and she had
gone with the applicant and co-accused person alongwith her sister-in-law
(nand). There is no allegation that applicant made viral the indecent
photograph of any of the victim, whatsoever. The said allegations of making
viral the said photographs are against co-accused person Rohit only.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
7.3.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
BAIL No. 13063 of 2026
2

but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in FIR and there being no allegation against the
applicant of having made viral the indecent photograph of the victim and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the
view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is
allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Lalman 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 verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper
with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court
as required.

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

10. 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.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shalini

Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…