Allahabad High Court
SAJAN @ DEEPAK LODHIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Sajan @ Deepak Lodhi, who was arrested in a case involving alleged rape of a 16‑year‑old girl under the POCSO Act, as well as offences under the BNS Act, SC/ST Act and the IT Act. The applicant argued that the victim was a consenting partner, that her age proof was uncertain, and that medical and forensic evidence did not support a rape charge, contending that he was falsely implicated. The State opposed bail, relying on the victim’s recorded statement and alleged viral videos, although the applicant’s phone was found to be formatted. Referring to Supreme Court precedents on bail – Kapil Wadhawan v CBI (2025) and Maya Tiwari v State of U.P. (2024) – and the need to de‑congest jails, the Court granted bail without passing on the merits. The order directed the applicant to furnish a personal bond with two sureties and imposed standard bail conditions. The bail order was to be communicated to the jail through the Bail Order Management System.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with offences under the BNS Act, POCSO Act, SC/ST Act and IT Act pending trial.
- Whether the alleged consent of the victim and lack of medical evidence justify bail in a rape case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- rape
- POCSO
- SC/ST Act
- IT Act
- consent
- false implication
- jail overcrowding
- Supreme Court guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26693 of 2026
Sajan @ Deepak Lodhi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manvendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Juhi Javed
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Shiv Dutt Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and Miss Juhi Javed,
learned counsel for the High Court Legal Services Committee. Second
supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 10 of 2026, under Sections 65(1),
351(3) of BNS and Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)5 of
SC/ST Act and Section 67B of IT Act, Police Station Kalyanpur, District
Fatehpur, during the pendency of the trial.
3. At the very outset, learned AGA submits that notice has been served on
the first informant.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and prior to
lodging of the present case, earlier case was lodged against the applicant
regarding enticing away the same victim and on perusal of the statement
of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, it appears that
she was in consensual relationship with the applicant. It is further
submitted that the age of the victim has been found to be 16 years and 03
months as per her certificate of school first attended which does not bear
any date. It is further submitted that the medico-legal report of the victim
does not support the commission of rape on her and testimony of the
victim has been recorded before the trial Court and therefore, there is no
BAIL No. 26693 of 2026
2
chance of tampering of evidence. It is further submitted that some videos
and photos are said to have been made viral, however, the same have not
been made viral by the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant
has been languishing in jail since 15.1.2026 he is having one criminal
history which has been duly explained. 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.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for High Court Legal
Services Committee have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail,
however, it is submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under
Sections 180 and 183 BNSS has stated that the applicant committed rape
on her and some videos and photos have been recorded by the applicant
and the same have been made viral, however, during investigation it has
surfaced that mobile phone of the applicant was formatted, therefore it
could not be established that the said videos and photos were made viral
from the mobile phone of the applicant.
6. Prior to lodging of the present case, earlier case was lodged against the
applicant for enticing away the same victim and it is submitted that on
perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and
183 BNSS, it appears that the victim is a consenting party. The age of the
victim has been found to be 16 years and 03 months as per her certificate
of school first attended, however, the same does not bear any date and the
medico-legal report of the victim does not support the commission of rape
on her and testimony of the victim has been recorded before the trial
Court and therefore, it is submitted that there is no chance of tampering of
evidence. During investigation, it could not be established that videos and
photos were made viral by the applicant. The applicant has been
languishing in jail since 15.1.2026 he is having one criminal history
which has been duly explained.
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
BAIL No. 26693 of 2026
3
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
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. Accordingly, the present application is ALLOWED.
9. Let the applicant- Sajan @ Deepak Lodhi 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.
BAIL No. 26693 of 2026
4
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
of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
September 9, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…