LALLAN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

               HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15022 of 2026

Lallan Kumar
                                                                         .....Applicant(s)
                                            Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                    .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                :     Mayank Yadav, Shailendra Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)           :     G.A.

Court No. - 69
                    HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri J.P.
Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on
bail in Case Crime No. 53 of 2024 under Sections 323, 498-A, 377, 506 IPC and 3/4
D.P. Act registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur during
pendency of the trial.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 16.4.2026. It is
further submitted that applicant has been summoned to face trial in a complaint case.
It is further submitted that applicant was granted interim bail by the learned Sessions
Court, however, due to communication gap between the applicant and his counsel, he
could not appear before the learned Magistrate on the date fixed in his bail application
and the same was rejected. He further submits that allegations made in the complaint
discloses some matrimonial offence and there is no allegation of commission of
unnatural sex between the applicant and the complainant, however, after about two
months, the complainant has alleged the said fact in her statement recorded under
section 200 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not
misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
applicant.

5. Applicant has been summoned to face trial in a complaint case and he was granted
interim bail by the learned Sessions Court, however, his bail application was rejected
due to non appearance. On perusal of complaint, it appears that there is no averment in
the complaint regarding 377 IPC, however, in her statement recorded under section
                                                                                                     BAIL No. 15022 of 2026
                                                                         2

                                    200 Cr.P.C., she has alleged the commission of said act. Some matrimonial disputes
                                    are going on between the complainant and the applicant who is in jail since 16.4.2026.

                                    6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record
                                    and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for
                                    bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.

                                    7. Let the applicant Lallan Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on
                                    bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the
                                    like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

                                    (i) 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.

                                    (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

                                    (iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates
                                    fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement
                                    under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

                                    (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any
                                    adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial
                                    court.

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

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

                                    9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
                                    determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression
                                    on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its
                                    independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in
                                    this order.

                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Madhurima
                                                                                                (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad