Madari @ Deshraj Lodh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 12503 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Madari @ Deshraj Lodh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 14 November, 2025

Author: Saurabh Lavania

Bench: Saurabh Lavania

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:73170
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2328 of 2025   
 
   Madari @ Deshraj Lodh    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Ravendra Pratap Singh, Jaiprakash Singh, Rakesh Singh Parihar   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 13
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.      

1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2 despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State and order of this Court dated 31.07.2025, which has been filed today is taken on record. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances and also taking note of the order of this Court dated 29.08.2025, which says "It is made clear that on the next dates fixed in the case, the case would not be adjourned on any ground and an appropriate order would be passed even in absence of learned counsel for the opposite party No.2", the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail appeal on merits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

3. 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 13.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Case Crime No. 20 of 2019, under Sections 323, 304, 504 I.P.C and Section 3(2)(V) S.C/S.T Act, P.S. Mohanlalganj, District -Lucknow.

4. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 15.01.2019. The period of incarceration is about 5 years and 10 months. Taking note of the period of incarceration, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

5. In regard to period of incarceration, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex 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), as per which, 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."

6. In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra), the Hon'ble 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."

7. It is further stated that if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value, which has been indicated in the F.I.R, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to prove the case against the appellant and if it is proved, it would fall for the offence under Section 304 (2) I.P.C and not under 304(1) I.P.C.

8. It is father stated that a bare perusal of the F.I.R would indicate that offense indicated under the SC/ST Act would not be attributed as in this regard specific allegations related to casteist remarks have not been indicated in the F.I.R.

9. Learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, however, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

10. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

11. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order and that the period of incarceration about 5 years and 10 months and that the criminal history of the appellant has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application and also the chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

12. The order dated 13.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Case Crime No. 20 of 2019, under Sections 323, 304, 504 I.P.C and Section 3(2)(V) S.C/S.T Act, P.S. Mohanlalganj, District -Lucknow. is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant- Madari @ Deshraj Lodh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

(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 shall 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.

14. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

15. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) 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(s) made in this order.

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

November 14, 2025

Preeti