Lakshman Lodh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ...

Sumit Chauhan, Ashutosh Srivastava, Kaushal Kishore Tewari, Pratibha Maurya, Shakti

Counsel for Respondent(s)

:

G.A.

Court No. - 12

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1-State.

2. As per office report dated 02.04.2026, respondent no.2-complainant is untraceable.

3. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

4. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with a prayer to set aside order dated 27.11.2025 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri on Bail Application arising out of Case Crime No.1378 of 2009 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)10 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Isanagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri refusing bail to appellant. Further, a prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant on bail in the said case crime.

5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that earlier appellant had been granted bail but some time in year 2021 during the COVID-period, he contracted tuberculosis while he was employed in Surat due to which he was unable to appear in trial leading to issuance of non-bailable warrant. It is submitted that non-attendance of the appellant in trial proceedings is inadvertent since appellant is not well-read and was unaware of the procedure required to be followed. It is submitted that despite the fact that Sessions Trial is pending from year 2014, even charges have not yet been framed. It is further submitted that after issuance of non-bailable warrant, appellant is under custody since 13.11.2025 and even thereafter, charges have not yet been framed. It is submitted that initial charge-sheet had been filed against appellant under minor Sections of 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Appellant undertakes to remain present before trial court on all the dates.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the appeal with submission that charges could not be framed in trial due to fact that appellant was absconding and has been taken into custody only after issuance of non-bailable warrant. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment will indicate that appellant had failed to produce any medical certificate to corroborate the submissions.

7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted that appellant was earlier enlarged on bail whereafter a non-bailable warrant was issued against him in year 2021 due to non-attendance and thereafter he has been taken into custody on 13.11.2025.

8. In pursuance of directions issued earlier, trial court report dated 27.04.2026 has been brought on record indicating that charges have not yet been framed against appellant. This is despite the fact that admittedly appellant is under incarceration since 13.11.2025. Report of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 20.03.2026 also indicates that complainant is untraceable for the past 15 years. In such circumstance as well, it appears that there cannot be any early conclusion of trial.

9. Looking to factors as submitted that appellant is a daily-wage employee and does not have adequate legal knowledge and that the provisions of I.P.C. indicated are minor in nature, as well as the undertaking given by appellant of remaining present before the trial court, the aspect of non-production of medical certificates is being overlooked.

10. In view of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 passed in proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.1378 of 2009 is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.

11. Let appellant/applicant Lakshman Lodh involved in aforesaid case crime 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 otherwise 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 appropriate 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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

(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. (bow 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 proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

12. The pending application if any too stands disposed of.

(Manish Mathur,J.)

May 7, 2026

kvg/-