Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 196412 (ALL)

RAMU LODHI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

BAIL/9941/2025 · 2025-10-15

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9941 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. None appears on behalf of the complainant, although, as per the instructions of learned A.G.A, notice to the complainant is served. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 24.03.2025, the applicant is alleged to have committed carnal intercourse with the victim, aged about 13 years. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the FIR, there is no date, time and place mentioned regarding the offence, while the victim has made substantial improvement in the statement given under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and no date of the incident has been narrated by her. Even in the prompt medical examination conducted on the very next day, no corroborative material has been found. The statement of the victim does not inspires confidence. The applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 25.03.2025. 4. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the victim is aged about 13 years and has supported the prosecution case. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhananjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramu Lodhi .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Considering the victim's statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, the absence of corroborative medical evidence, chargesheet has been filed in the case, as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.03.2025 without any criminal history, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant Ramu Lodhi involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 88 of 2025, Under Sections- 115(2), 352 BNS and Section 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Kakori, District- Lucknow, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate BAIL No. 9941 of 2025 2 proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). 9. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. October 15, 2025 Raj BAIL No. 9941 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench