Allahabad High Court

RAMJEET LODHIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 10 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 Ramjeet Lodhi in a case involving alleged assault and death of a victim. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, pointing out that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's claim that the assault caused the victim's death. The court noted the lack of corroborative evidence, the grant of bail to a co-accused, and the applicant's clean record, concluding there was no reasonable apprehension of tampering or intimidation. The State counsel could not refute these points. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant's release on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the lack of corroborative evidence and medical findings.
Whether the medical evidence undermines the prosecution's case linking the applicant to the offence.
Whether the grant of bail to a co-accused creates a right of parity for the applicant.
Whether there is a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or pressurising witnesses if released on bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 115, 127, 191, 351, 352

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Indian Penal Code
medical evidence
false implication
parity
no criminal antecedents

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32284 of 2026

Ramjeet Lodhi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Surendra Mohan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record. Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2026, under Sections 191(2),
127(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 105 B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali Lotan,
District- Siddharth Nagar, during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. As per the first information report eight
named accused including the applicant and five unknown persons are alleged
to have assaulted the nephew and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the informant.
The nephew of the informant, namely Sandeep Yadav was examined at
District Hospital, Siddharth Nagar on 25.4.2026. The doctor recorded seven
injuries. All the injuries were found simple in nature, except injury no.3 on
forearm and injury no.4 on right hand, which were referred for x-ray
examination. He subsequently died on 29.4.2026. As per the postmortem
report, cause of death is hypoxia due to antemortem lungs injury. It is
contended that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case.
The death of the nephew cannot be attributed to the alleged assault. Vague
and general allegation has been levelled against the applicant. At this stage,
there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence.
Further, co-accused Ram Milan has been granted bail by this Court vide
order dated 3.9.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27804 of
2026. Applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 6.7.2026 having
BAIL No. 32284 of 2026
2

no criminal antecedents and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.

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

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the the medical evidence does not support the
prosecution case. Vague and general allegation has been levelled against the
applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. Further, co-accused Ram Milan has been granted
bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and
has presently remained confined for more than two months and there is no
hope of early conclusion of trial, 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 intimidate the witness,
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, Ramjeet Lodhi involved in the aforesaid case be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following
conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

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 11, 2026
Manish Kr

(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…