Allahabad High Court
SUJEET @ LALUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sujeet @ Lalu, accused of murder, causing disappearance of evidence and common intention under IPC sections 302, 201 and 34. The applicant argued that the FIR was lodged late, the eyewitness statement was omitted, and the police allegedly planted evidence, creating doubt about the prosecution case. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual allegations. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI, Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P., and the policy directive on bail, the court, without expressing a view on guilt, held that the applicant is entitled to bail. The court ordered his release on personal bond with two sureties, subject to standard conditions and verification procedures.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a non‑bailable offence of murder, evidence tampering and common intention during trial pendency.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and alleged police fabrication of evidence justify bail.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and the Supreme Court’s bail jurisprudence warrant release.
- Application of the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Kapil Wadhawan and Maya Tiwari to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- trial pendency
- Supreme Court precedent
- evidence tampering
- jail overcrowding
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16694 of 2026
Sujeet @ Lalu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijay Bahadur Shivhare
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Vijay Bahadur Shivhare, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Anand Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 354 of 2025, under Sections
103(1)238, 3(5) BNS (corresponding sections 302, 201, 34 IPC) at Police
Station- Kabrai, District-Mahoba, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the father of the
first informant had been missing since 10.12.2025, and his dead body was
found in a nearby forest on 11.12.2025. The postmortem of the deceased
was also conducted on the same day, and thereafter the dead body was
cremated. Subsequently, the FIR was lodged on 30.12.2025, wherein
allegations have been made that the applicant and co-accused, Gomti, had
murdered the deceased on account of an illicit relationship between the
co-accused and the applicant despite being close relatives. It is further
submitted that, in support of the prosecution story, one eye-witness,
Santosh, also came forward and got his statement recorded on 30.12.2025,
wherein he stated that he had seen the applicant and co-accused dragging
the body of the deceased from the house to the nearby forest on
10.12.2025, and thereafter he also checked and found the dead body of
the deceased in the nearby forest, and the said fact was also informed by
him to the first informant.
BAIL No. 16694 of 2026
2
4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that, in case
the eye-witness Santosh had informed the fact of dragging the dead body
of the deceased and finding the same in the nearby field, then these facts
ought to have been mentioned in the FIR lodged on 30.12.2025, and even
otherwise the FIR could have been lodged much earlier immediately after
the postmortem, which itself creates doubt upon the prosecution story. It
is further submitted that the police has falsely planted one broken brick
and two kitchen knives alleged to have been recovered on the pointing out
of the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal
history. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed in the
present case, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation.
The applicant is a law-abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since
31.12.2025. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of
bail and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial
courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as
guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.,
2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that
the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Let the applicant- Sujeet @ Lalu, involved in the aforementioned
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,
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
BAIL No. 16694 of 2026
3
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without
seeking any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission
of any crime after being released on bail.
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as
well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
11. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Mahoba via e-mail or e-prison portal within 24
hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy
Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4
of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
May 18, 2026
SA
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…