Om Prakash Lodhi vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned brief holder for the State-respondent.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 145 of 2025, under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant along with three accused persons were arrested in Case Crime No. 213 of 2025, under Sections 25, 4 , 3 Arms Act and Sections 3(5), 109 BNS, Police Station Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Except the confessional statement of the applicant while in police custody, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Kallu @ Munna, Sunil Lodhi and Santosh Lodhi have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39378 of 2025. The applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 17 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 29.07.2025 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned brief holder for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. Except the confessional statement of the applicant while in police custody, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Kallu @ Munna, Sunil Lodhi and Santosh Lodhi have been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than nine months and after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant Om Prakash Lodhi, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

May 7, 2026

Lbm/-