Allahabad High Court
Lalu Prasad vs State Of U.P. on 22 August, 2025
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144751
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24222 of 2023
Applicant :- Lalu Prasad
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akansha Verma,Deepak Kumar Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Verma, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.134 of 2022, under Sections 308, 304, 323, 498A I.P.C., Police Station-Gajner, District-Kanpur Dehat with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
5. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites 30.05.2015. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry, thereby beaten the deceased up who was pregnant by about eight months and on 24.06.2022 they threw the deceased person from the roof to kill her, thereby, she was admitted to Halet Hosptial, Kanpur and on 05.07.2022 a baby girl was born during treatment and subsequently on 06.07.2022 the deceased died during treatment.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by about three days from the date of death of the deceased and about 15 days from the initial date of incident and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The cause of death was found to be head injury but the applicant had nothing to do with the said offence. Only three witnesses have been examined till date and trial is moving at a snail's pace.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant place much reliance on the statement of P.W.2 who had stated that the deceased had given birth to a baby girl and she was taken to their house after the victim's death and thereafter the baby girl expired subsequently, as such, prosecution story as alleged in the FIR stands falsified. There is no criminal history of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 29.07.2022, as such, he is incarcerated for about three years. Applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that applicant had thrown his wife from the roof in a very advanced stage of pregnancy and the baby girl born has also expired subsequently, as such, applicant is not entitled for bail.
9. This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As per the status report dated 20.08.2025 received from the trial court concerned, seven witnesses have already been examined.
10. The Supreme Court in case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that seven witnesses have already been examined coupled with the fact that cause of death is shock and Hemorrhage and in light of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra), I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
12. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.
13. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 22.8.2025
Karan
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
