Allahabad High Court
SHAMSHER SINGH ALIAS LALU YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Shamsher Singh alias Lalu Yadav, who was arrested in a murder case (Crime No. 81 of 2025) and alleged to have been falsely implicated. The applicant argued lack of eyewitness testimony, reliance on circumstantial evidence, and his clean record, while the prosecution highlighted his presence at the scene and the severity of the injuries, including a fractured hyoid bone. The court noted that bail had already been granted to a co‑accused woman on health grounds but held that this did not preclude bail for the applicant. Referring to Supreme Court precedents on bail and the need to decongest prisons, the court decided that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions. Consequently, the bail application was allowed and the applicant was ordered to be released on personal bond with sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, despite being present at the scene of a murder, is entitled to bail on the ground of false implication and lack of direct evidence.
- Whether the bail granted to a co‑accused female on health grounds creates a right of parity for the applicant.
- Whether the seriousness of the offence, as indicated by the post‑mortem findings, outweighs the presumption of innocence in granting bail.
- How the Supreme Court guidelines in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI, Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P., and the Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail case apply to this bail application.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- circumstantial evidence
- murder
- hyoid bone fracture
- overcrowded prisons
- Supreme Court bail guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39444 of 2025
Shamsher Singh Alias Lalu Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lavlesh Kumar Sharma, Ray Sahab
Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., G.S. Chauhan
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Lavlesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri G.S. Chauhan,
learned counsel for the first informant.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 81 of 2025, under Sections 103(1),
3(5) BNS, Police Station Erach, District Jhansi, during the pendency of
the trial.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted
that co-accused Smt Bhuri Devi has already been granted bail by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.4.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38615 of 2025. It is further
submitted that there is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence and case is
based on circumstantial evidence and during investigation it has surfaced
that one Jatadhari, who is an Ambulance driver reached the place of
occurrence after the incident was over and the applicant and co-accused
Buddh Prakash ran towards him and he fled away. It is further submitted
that if any motive is alleged that is against the co-accused Buddh Prakash
and during investigation two independent witnesses Bhan Prakash and
Smt. Jai Shri have stated before the I.O. that he suspected the fidelity of
his wife. It is further submitted that there may be strong suspicion,
however, suspicion shall not take place of proof as there is no other
BAIL No. 39444 of 2025
2
evidence against the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant is the
father-in-law of the deceased and he has been languishing in jail since
1.7.2025 and he is having no criminal history. It is lastly submitted that in
case the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and it is submitted that co-accused Smt Bhuri
Devi has been granted bail on the ground that she is a lady and she is ill
and the applicant cannot claim parity from the said order. It is further
submitted that at the relevant point of time the applicant and co-accused
Buddh Prakash were present at the place of occurrence and as per post-
mortem report of the deceased, six injuries have been found on the person
of the deceased and her hyoid bone has been found fractured and the said
incident cannot be committed by a single person alone. It is further
submitted that presence of the applicant along with co-accused and the
deceased is fully established by the statement of Jatadhari.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and it is submitted that
the applicant and co-accused Buddh Prakash were present at the relevant
point of time and the deceased has received six ante-mortem injuries and
her hyoid bone has been found fractured.
6. As per the allegation in the FIR, co-accused Buddh Prakash is said to
have taken the deceased along with him on the pretext of treating his
mother who was ill and the applicant and the deceased along with other
person boarded an ambulance of Jatadhari and reached the place where
the mother of co-accused Buddh Prakash was living. The applicant and
co-accused are said to have asked Jatadhari to go out for some breakfast
and when the said Jatadhri returned, he found the dead body of the
deceased and the applicant and co-accused were present and the applicant
and co-accused ran after him and he fled away and he gave the
information to the brother of the deceased. Clearly, it appears that the said
Jatadhari is not an eyewitness of the occurrence as he reached the place of
occurrence after the incident was over. It is submitted that there is strong
suspicion against the applicant, however, suspicion cannot take place. As
per post-mortem report of the deceased, six injuries have been found on
BAIL No. 39444 of 2025
3
her person and her hyoid bone has been found fractured and cause of
death has been shown as asphyxia due to strangulation. Following ante-
mortem injuries found on the person the deceased are quoted below:
1. Ligature mark size 37.0 cm x 2.5 cm present anterior aspect of neck
between chin and thyroid process of neck and goes horizontal left and
right side of neck ligature mark is parchment and left side 6.0 cm below
of left pinna and 6.3 cm below of right pinna. ligature mark complete the
circle. No gap present.
2. Contusion size 6.0 c x 3.0 cm left eye upper lid.
3. Contusion size 6.0 cm x 3.0 cm right upper lid.
4. abrasion size 0.2 x 0.2 cm right hand post aspect of right hand. clotted
blood present 6.0 cm blow of the right wrist joint. clotted blood present
right hand nail. so nail particle present for DNA sample.
5. Abrasion size 0.5 x 0.5 of left hand 8.0 cm blow of left wrist joint.
6. Hyoid bone fracture.
The motive regarding suspicion on fidelity of the deceased is on co-
accused Buddh Prakash. Co-accused Smt Bhuri Devi has already been
granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
16.4.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38615 of 2025.
The applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased and he has been
languishing in jail since 1.7.2025 and he is having no criminal history.
7. 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. reported in 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
BAIL No. 39444 of 2025
4
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
9. Let the applicant- Shamsher Singh Alias Lalu Yadav 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.
(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.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground
for cancellation of bail.
11. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well
as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
12. 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.
13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
concerned Jail Superintendent 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
BAIL No. 39444 of 2025
5
of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 8, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…