Allahabad High Court
BHARAT LODHIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Bharat Lodhi, who was charged under several IPC sections for allegedly assaulting the nephew and sister‑in‑law of an informant, resulting in the nephew's death. The applicant contended that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case and that the allegations were vague, with no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence. The State could not refute these submissions, and the court noted that co‑accused had already been granted bail and that the applicant had no prior criminal record. Finding no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. Accordingly, the court ordered his release on personal bond and sureties, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the applicant given the nature of the allegations and the lack of corroborative evidence.
- Whether the medical evidence undermines the prosecution's case sufficiently to warrant bail.
- Whether there is a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released.
- Whether parity with co‑accused who were granted bail applies to the applicant.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 115(2), 127(2), 191(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- medical evidence
- lack of corroboration
- parity
- no criminal antecedents
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33325 of 2026
Bharat 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 of the informant 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 and Ramjeet Lodhi have been granted bail by this Court vide orders
dated 3.9.2026 and 11.09.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.27804 of 2026 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.32284 of
2026, respectively. Applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since
6.7.2026 having 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
BAIL No. 33325 of 2026
2
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, Bharat 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 18, 2026
Abhishek
(Vivek Varma, J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…