Allahabad High Court

HARIKESH LODHI @ KHARKHARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 22 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 Harikesh Lodhi @ Kharkhar, who was charged under several IPC sections for an alleged assault that resulted in the death of a victim. The applicant argued that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case and that the allegations against him were vague, citing that a co-accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant's submissions. The court found that the prosecution evidence was insufficient, there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation, and the applicant had already been in custody for over twenty‑five days with no prospect of a speedy trial. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite charges under IPC sections 191(2), 127(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) and B.N.S.
Whether the medical evidence sufficiently links the applicant to the alleged offence
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
Whether parity with a co‑accused already granted bail warrants granting bail to the applicant

Legislation cited

B.N.S.
Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 127(2), 191(2), 351(3), 352

Subjects

bail
Indian Penal Code
medical evidence
parity
witness tampering
trial delay
presumption of innocence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33990 of 2026

Harikesh Lodhi @ Kharkhar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prabhakar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned
A.G.A. for the State and 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 and five unknown persons are alleged to have assaulted
the nephew and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the informant. The nephew of
the informant was initially examined at C.H.C., Lotan. He was thereafter
referred to District Hospital, Siddharth Nagar. The attending 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. The injured Sandeep Yadav 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. Identically placed co-accused Ram Awadh
has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2026
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.27282 of 2026. The
applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 29.08.2026 having
no criminal history 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.
BAIL No. 33990 of 2026
2

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the medical evidence does not support the
prosecution case. Vague and general allegation has been levelled against
the applicant. Co-accused Ram Awadh has already been granted bail by
this Court. Further, the applicant has presently remained confined for
more than twenty five days 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, Harikesh Lodhi @ Kharkhar 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 23, 2026
Abhishek
(Vivek Varma, J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…