Allahabad High Court

SHRIKANT LODHIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The court held that, given the serious injuries inflicted and the gravity of the offences, the appellant is not entitled to bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act.

Summary

The appellant, Shrikant Lodhi, filed a criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeking to set aside a bail denial order dated 19 January 2026 and to obtain bail in a case involving multiple offences including assault and grievous injuries. The FIR alleged that Lodhi and his father assaulted the father of the informant with a kulhari, causing serious head injuries to two victims. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record, and that the injuries were minor. The court examined medical reports showing significant skull injuries caused by hard and sharp objects, and noted that the appellant was known to the victims, undermining the claim of false implication. Considering the gravity of the offences, the nature of the injuries, and the evidence presented, the court concluded that bail could not be granted. Consequently, the appeal and the bail application were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Whether the appellant was falsely implicated in the offences alleged in the FIR.
Whether the nature and seriousness of the injuries and the gravity of the offences justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 109, 117(2), 118(1), 131, 14A(2), 3(1) r/w 3(2)va, 3(1)w(i), 3(2)v, 333, 3(5), 351(3), 352, 74, 76

Subjects

bail
SC/ST Act
Section 14A
atrocity
assault
injury
criminal appeal
false implication
gravity of offence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3108 of 2026

Shrikant Lodhi
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Virpratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Virpratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Bade
Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. On 23.4.2026 the following order was passed by this Court:-

"1. List revised.
2. Sri Virpratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State
are present and have been heard.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 26.03.2026. As per office report dated
22.04.2026, the report of the C.J.M. concerned has been received stating therein that notice has been
served personally on the opposite party no.2.
4. Perusal of the report dated 16.04.2026 of the C.J.M. concerned it is evident that notice has been served
on the opposite party no.2. The police report dated is also enclosed with the said report of the C.J.M.
stating that notice has been served. It is only nine days since notice has been served.
5. The perusal of the said report shows that notice has been served personally on the opposite party no.2
but no one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2.
6. However, in the interest of justice, awaiting response to the said notice, the matter is adjourned for
today.
7. Let the matter be listed on 06.05.2026 as fresh."

4. Today again despite service of notice on the opposite party no.2 and
sufficient time being elapsed, no one appears on his behalf even in the
revised list neither the opposite party no.2 is personally present in the
Court. The Court thus proceeds to hear the matter.

5. This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant Shrikant Lodhi, with
the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 19.1.2026 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Hamirpur, in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 67 of 2026, Rakesh Rajpoot and
CRLA No. 3108 of 2026
2

another vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 181 of 2025,
under Sections 74,76, 333, 131, 118(1), 3(5), 109, 352, 351(3), 117(2)
BNS and Section 3(1) r/w 3(2)va, 3(2)v, 3(1)w(i) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station
Jariya, District- Hamirpur, with a further prayer to release the appellant
on bail in the aforesaid case.

6. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 08.09.2025 by the opposite
party no. 2/informant/victim against the appellant, Rakesh Rajpoot and
Brijnandan Lodhi alleging therein that on 07.09.2025 at about 07:30 p.m.
she was alone in her house wherein Rakesh Rajpoot entered in the house
with a country made pistol and started forcing her on which she raised a
shout, her mother Smt. Shanti Devi, husband Amarchandra came there
and then he took a lathi which was kept there and attacked on him and in
the same tore her clothes. She ran from there and informed about it to her
father on phone who was coming from the fields. On receiving
information, her father rushed to the place and as soon as he reached near
the house, Shrikant Lodhi the younger brother of Rakesh Lodhi and
Brijnandan his father assaulted her father with kulhari due to which he
received injuries. He was taken to C.H.C., Sareela where he was found to
be critical and after first aid referred to the Orai Medical College. She
lives alone in the house and has a threat from the accused, her report be
lodged and action be taken.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that role assigned to
the appellant and Brijnandan is of assault with kulhari on the father of the
informant. It is submitted that Amarchandra the father of the informant,
was interrogated who stated of assault by Shrikant Lodhi and Brijnandan
with a lathi on him and his brother Matadeen. It is submitted that
Matadeen also reiterated the same version. It is submitted that both the
said accused have assigned the role of assault by kulhari on Rakesh
Rajpoot. It is submitted further that the injuries received by the two
injured Matadeen and Amarchandra are simple in nature. The appellant is
having no criminal history as stated in para-27 of the affidavit in support
of bail application in appeal and is in jail since 13.09.2025.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and
the appeal.

9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
records it is evident that Matadeen received the following injuries on his
person:-

"1. S/W of size 2-3cm over the right side of frontal region of skull,
margin regular with complaint of pain.

2. Traumatic swelling with tenderness, deformity & restricted movement
CRLA No. 3108 of 2026
3

over the distal 1/3rd of left forearm area with complaint of pain.

3. B.P. 112/70 MMHG, P.R. 68 BPM, SPO2 99% on RA

MLC X Ray advised and refer to neurosx unit for further IX and T/T PT.
is conscious and well oriented to time/place/person while doing MLC"

The same were found to be caused by hard and blunt object and injury no.
1 and 2 were kept under observation for X-ray.

10. Amar Chandra received the following injuries on his person:-

"1.S/w of size 4-5 cm over the right side of frontal region of skull,
margin regular with complaint of pain.

2. s/w of size 5-6 cm over the left side of frontal region of skull, margin
regular with complain of pain.

3. B.P. 118/76 MMHG, P.R. 70 BPM, SPO2 98% on RA"

MLC X Ray advised and refer to neurosx unit for further IX and T/T

PT. is semi conscious and not oriented to time/place/person while doing
MLC.

The injuries were opined to be cause by hard and sharp object and the
injury no. 1 and 2 were kept under observation.

11. Thus the fact remains that there are two injured persons who have
received injuries on vital parts of the body being skull and there are to
assailants assigned the role of assault on them. The appellant is the person
who is previously known to the injured and as such there is no reason for
false implication.

12. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and
gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the appellant on
bail.

13. Accordingly, the appeal and the application for bail are hereby
rejected.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Samit Gopal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Naresh

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…