Allahabad High Court

KAILASH LODHIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 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 under Section 483 for Kailash Lodhi, who had been in custody since November 2017 for alleged offences under Sections 396 and 412 IPC. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the recovery was false, and that no identification parade was conducted. He also highlighted the excessive pre‑trial detention of over eight years, the prosecution’s delay in examining witnesses, and the violation of his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The State opposed bail but could not demonstrate any risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Finding that the delay was not attributable to the applicant and that his right to speedy trial was infringed, the Court ordered his release on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite prolonged pre‑trial detention
Whether the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 has been violated
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses

Subjects

bail
speedy trial
Article 21
pre‑trial detention
IPC Section 396
IPC Section 412
false implication

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13843 of 2026

Kailash Lodhi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jai Kishan, Vipin Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K.Sharma, learned AGA for
the State.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with
a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Special Sessions Trial No. 16 of
2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 226 of 2017, under Sections 396 and
412 IPC, Police Station Sakeet, District Etah during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in
the first information report. On the basis of information furnished by the
informant, the applicant was arrested on 06.11.2017 and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. False recovery has been shown from the
applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery.
Recovered article cannot be connected with the offence. No identification
parade was got conducted by the police authorities.

4. Counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant is in jail
since 06.11.2017. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and has always
cooperated with the investigation, and has attended the trial. The applicant
never influenced the witnesses nor tempered with the evidence. Undue
delay caused by the prosecution witnesses has led to pro-longed
incarnation of the applicant. The trial is moving at snail's pace and shows
no sign of early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay
in conclusion of trial. As per the charge sheet, the prosecution proposes to
BAIL No. 13843 of 2026
2

examine 42 witnesses to bring home the charges. Charge sheet has been
filed against the applicant on 25.01.2018. Charges were framed against
the applicant on 29.04.2018. As per the order sheet, till date only three
prosecution witnesses have been examined. Prosecution witnesses and
other co-accused are deliberately delaying the trial only to prolong the
incarceration of the applicant. Criminal history of the applicant has been
explained in para 5 of the supplementary affidavit. In case, he is enlarged
on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the applicant is in jail for more than eight
years and five months. As per the charge sheet, the prosecution proposes
to examine 42 witnesses to bring home the charges. Charge sheet has
been filed and charges were framed against the applicant. As per the
order-sheet, till date only three prosecution witnesses have been
examined. Undue delay caused by the prosecution witnesses and other co-
accused have led to pro-longed incarnation of the applicant. Even the
prosecution could not bring on record any material, which would show
that the trial has been delayed on account of any fault on the part of the
present applicant. Thus, the 'right of speedy trial' of the applicant as
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated.

7. Consequently, keeping in view the above stated facts and more so when
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, without commenting on merits
of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged
on bail.

8. Let the applicant Kailash Lodhi involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject
to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
BAIL No. 13843 of 2026
3

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
May 5, 2026
Lbm/-

Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…