Allahabad High Court
JWALA PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
Jwala Prasad was charged under Section 105 of the Indian Penal Code for the death of his brother Chhabiram during a violent altercation at Lahta, Varanasi. The prosecution alleged that the applicant attacked his brother, who died two days later, while the defence argued that both parties were heavily intoxicated, engaged in a mutual free fight, and that the death resulted from negligent medical treatment rather than the applicant's actions. The court noted contradictions in the FIR and the first informant's statements, but accepted the eye‑witness accounts indicating no pre‑meditation or intent to cause death. Considering the applicant's clean criminal record, the overcrowding of jails, and the Supreme Court’s recent bail jurisprudence (Kapil Wadhawan and Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail), the bench found no compelling reason to keep the accused in custody. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to standard conditions and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a homicide case where the accused claims self‑defence and lack of pre‑meditation.
- Whether contradictions in the FIR and statements affect the strength of the charge.
- Whether the death can be attributed directly to the accused’s act or to subsequent medical negligence.
- How the Supreme Court precedents on bail (Kapil Wadhawan and Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail) apply to the present facts.
- Whether the applicant’s personal circumstances (no prior record, jail overcrowding) justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 105
Subjects
- bail
- homicide
- self-defence
- intoxication
- free fight
- premeditation
- jail overcrowding
- Supreme Court precedent
- conditions of bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32871 of 2025
Jwala Prasad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Birendra Kumar Gautam, Jitendra
Singh, Sachchida Nand Ojha, Sunil
Kumar Yadav, Vikas Srivastava, Vishal
Vishwakarma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 136 of 2025, under section 105, BNS,
P.S. Lahta, District Varanasi, during the pendency of the trial.
3. As per the prosecution case, the applicant attacked his real brother,
namely, Chhabiram, who succumbed after two days.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the first informant was not an eye
witness to the incident and there are serious contradictions in the First
Information Report as well as in the statement of the first informant. It is
further submitted that in order to explain the said contradiction, a
supplementary statement of the first informant was also recorded. It is
further submitted that, on perusal of the statements of the eye witnesses,
namely, Bhagelu, Aman Kumar and Natthu, it is clear that the incident
was a free fight between the applicant and the deceased, during which
both of them attacked each other. The applicant also sustained injuries in
the said incident, and during the scuffle, the deceased sustained injuries
which subsequently found fatal.
5. It is further submitted that, from the statements of the eye witnesses, it
BAIL No. 32871 of 2025
2
is clear that both the applicant and the deceased were heavily intoxicated
while quarreling with each other. There was no premeditation or intention
on the part of the applicant to cause such injuries as could result in the
death of the deceased. It is submitted that the applicant had attacked the
deceased in self-defence. It is further submitted that the deceased died due
to negligence in treatment and, therefore, the alleged injuries caused by
the applicant cannot be said to have been the direct cause of death. It is
lastly submitted that charge sheet has been filed by the police, therefore,
there is no requirement for custodial interrogation. The applicant has no
criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 30.05.2025. In case, he
is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate
in the trial proceedings.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for
bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and also keeping in view the fact that the
incident appears to have been a free fight between two real brothers,
during which both of them quarrelled and attacked each other and further
that there was no premeditated intention to cause such injuries and also
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 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. Accordingly,
the bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Jwala Prasad 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
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
BAIL No. 32871 of 2025
3
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.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
8. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
9. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
downloaded copy of this order from the official website of High Court
Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking
that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
10. It is 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.
11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or on e-prison portal and Trial
Court via e-mode 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 as well as Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others
Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.
169 of 2025, decided on 29.05.2026.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 24, 2026
Sushma
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHAMA YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…