Allahabad High Court

KANHAIYA LAL @ LALLUversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Kanhaiya Lal @ Lallu, who was arrested in a case involving alleged assault and the death of the informant's wife. The applicant claimed he was falsely implicated and that the FIR contained only vague allegations against him, with no corroborative evidence linking him to the crime, while a co-accused was specifically identified. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant's contentions. The court noted the applicant's lack of criminal history, the three‑month pre‑trial detention, and the absence of any risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, especially since two co‑accused had already been granted bail. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant to be released on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the applicant despite the serious nature of the offences alleged under the IPC.
Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail.
Whether the applicant is entitled to parity with co‑accused who have already been granted bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 110, 118, 131, 191, 351, 352

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Indian Penal Code
false implication
presumption of innocence
pre‑trial detention

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33854 of 2026

Kanhaiya Lal @ Lallu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Apurva Prakash Tiwari, Ramanuj
Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma,
learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party, and perused the records.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 157 of 2026, under Sections 191(2),
118(4), 131, 352, 110, 351(2), 105 B.N.S., Police Station Koraon, District
Prayagraj during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. As per the allegations contained in the
first information report, the applicant along with five accused is alleged to
have assaulted the informant, his wife, son and daughter in-law. The wife of
the informant succumbed to her injuries. As per the postmortem report, the
deceased sustained four injuries. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of
death was coma due to ante mortem head injuries. In the statement of the
son of the informant (injured), specific role of assault has been assigned to
co-accused Mithun @ Manik Chandra. Vague and general allegations have
been levelled against the applicant. At this stage there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused
Tarachandra and Shankar Lal have already been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 12.08.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.23908 of 2026. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since
29.05.2026 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will
not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 33854 of 2026
2

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that as per the allegations contained in
the first information report, the applicant along with five accused is alleged
to have assaulted the informant, his wife, son and daughter in-law. In the
statement of the son of the informant (injured), specific role of assault has
been assigned to co-accused Mithun @ Manik Chandra. Vague and general
allegations have been levelled against the applicant. At this stage there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Co-accused
Tarachandra and Shankar Lal have already been granted bail by this Court.
The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has
remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the
charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable
apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if
enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or
intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the
case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant- Kanhaiya Lal @ Lallu, involved in the aforesaid case,
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the
conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
September 23, 2026
Abhishek
(Vivek Varma, J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…