Allahabad High Court
Roop Ram Lodh @ Tikai vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home ... on 14 November, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:72914
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3636 of 2024
Roop Ram Lodh @ Tikai
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Alok Srivastava, Neeraj Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A., Anuj Mishra, Bhuvan Dwivedi
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Court No. 2, Unnao, in Bail Application No. 3022 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 304 IPC and Sections 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Ajgain, District-Unnao.
3. It is stated that appellant, having no criminal history, is in jail since 16.06.2024 and accordingly period of incarceration would come to about 16 months.
4. It is also stated that the trial is not proceeding in the matter as required under the law.
5. The prosecution to establish its case would examined total 26 witnesses as appears from the charge sheet annexed as Annexure No. CA-9 filed by the State and in view of the matter, chances of conclusion of trial in near future are extremely bleak.
6. Based upon the submission of charge sheet, it is also stated that at this stage of the case it is apparent that the appellant is not a position to temper the documentary evidence as also influence the witness of the prosecution.
7. According to the FIR, as well as the statement of the injured witness, it is apparent that the offense would fall under Section 304 Part-II IPC and not under Section 304 Part-I IPC. From the statement of the injured witness, it is clear that the dispute arose due to a demand for tobacco made by one Deepu, the uncle of the injured Shivani Raidas, who refused to give it. In response, the appellant used abusive language, made caste-based remarks, and assaulted him with a lathi. In retaliation, Deepu, the uncle of the injured Shivani Raidas, abused one Raj Kumar @ Kooki, the present appellant-Vikas @ Vikas Lodh, Mahesh, and Karan, who had appeared at Deepu's house. They also used abusive language, made caste-based remarks, and assaulted him. As a result of the injuries sustained, Deepu subsequently died.
8. It is also stated that incarceration period is much higher in the present case as the appellant is in incarceration since 16.06.2024 and in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation, passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020), bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:- "This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
9. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:- "On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that long period of detention is cause of action and he has submitted that second bail can be considered on this fresh ground. He has invited attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gokarakonda Naga Saibaba. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 12 SCC 505. The relevant para-4 of the said judgment is quoted below:- "4. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties, specially the undisputed position that the petitioner has never been accused of having misused the concession of bail, we are of the view, that the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is extremely unfair. Since all the material witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, the release of the petitioner on bail ought not to have been opposed, especially keeping in mind the medical condition of the petitioner." (Emphasis supplied)
11. Thus, taking note of aforesaid particularly period of incarceration, including the judgment(s) referred above, the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future and general allegations levelled against all the accused by the injured and informant, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. With the regard to delay
12. Learned A.G.A. and Sri Bhuvan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the fact related period of incarceration and criminal history.
13. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report/post mortem report as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation and the judgments, referred above.
14. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statement(s) of the victim and contents of the FIR as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.
15. The the impugned order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Court No. 2, Unnao, in Bail Application No. 3022 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 304 IPC and Sections 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Ajgain, District-Unnao, is hereby set aside.
16. Let appellant-Roop Ram Lodh @ Tikai be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-
(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.
(v) The appellant 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.
(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
17. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
November 14, 2025
Vinay/-
