Allowed¶21

Arjun Lodhi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2025CRLA/6086/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Criminal Appeal No. 6086 of 2025; Section 14-A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 bail appeal; Arjun Lodhi versus State of U.P.; bail granted, rejection order set aside; consent versus false promise of marriage; Sections 69, 352 BNS and 3(2)V SC/ST Act; Case Crime No. 263 of 2025; P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri; opposite party no. 2 absent despite service of notice; personal bond and two sureties with conditions; Anil Kumar-X, J.; November 17, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to appellant Arjun Lodhi on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to five listed conditions and verification of sureties before release; the impugned bail-rejection order was set aside. ¶21

Arjun Lodhi vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant Arjun Lodhi, accused in Case Crime No. 263 of 2025 (Sections 69, 352 BNS; 3(2)V SC/ST Act), had made out a case for grant of bail despite the Special Judge's rejection of his bail application. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and severity of punishment, the appellant had made out a case for bail.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The appeal was allowed and the impugned order rejecting the appellant's bail application was set aside.

¶21

Key takeaways

The appellant was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, appearance before the trial court on fixed dates, commission of no similar offence, and no inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure; breach permits coercive action or cancellation of bail.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Anil Kumar-X, J.), decided November 17, 2025, against the bail-rejection order dated 26.05.2025 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Mainpuri in Bail Application No. 925 of 2025, arising from Case Crime No. 263 of 2025 under Sections 69 and 352 of BNS and 3(2)V SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mainpuri. Counsel for the appellant argued that the victim herself stated in the FIR she was in a love relationship, that the marriage fixed with another did not end contact, and that the physical relationship on the pretext of false marriage pointed to consensual relations with a bald and vague promise allegation; the learned AGA opposed, submitting the victim became pregnant. Weighing the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity and severity of punishment, the Court held a case for bail was made out, allowed the appeal, set aside the rejection order, and directed release on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions covering non-tampering, non-intimidation of witnesses, appearance before the trial court, abstention from similar offences and from inducement or threats to dissuade disclosure, with liberty for coercive action or bail cancellation on breach.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6086 of 2025

Arjun Lodhi

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Rajneesh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 87

¶10

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶11

Case called out in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. Heard learned counsel for appellant and the learned AGA for State.

¶12

As per office report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose the appeal.

¶13

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated26.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Mainpuri in Bail Application No.925 of 2025 (Arjun Lodhi Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 263 of 2025 under Section 69, 352 of BNS and 3(2)V SC/ST Act, at Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that victim herself has stated in the FIR that she was in love relationship with appellant. She has alleged that her marriage was fixed with some other person, however appellant continued to talk with her and also established physical relationship on the pretext of false marriage. It was submitted that allegation by victim itself suggest that relation between them were consensual and allegation regarding promise is bald and vague. Hence, appellant is entitled to bail.

¶15

Learned AGA for State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that she also became pregnant as a result of physical relationship between

¶16

CRLA No. 6086 of 2025

¶17

¶18

appellant and victim.

¶19

I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record.

¶20

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶22

Let the appellant- Arjun Lodhi involved in Case Crime No. 263 of 2025 under Sections 69, 352 of BNS and 3(2)V SC/ST Act, at Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri , be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶23

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶24

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶25

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶26

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶27

(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.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the concerned Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted.

¶29

November 17, 2025 Mukesh

¶30

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arjun Lodhi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Lodhi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suraj Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Durgesh Kushwah vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohtash vs State of U.P.

Shambhu Bhadauriya vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukund Kumar Jha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others