Shrikant Lodhi vs State Of U.P. And Another

2. Heard Sri Virpratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. On 23.4.2026 the following order was passed by this Court:-

"1. List revised.

2. Sri Virpratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State are present and have been heard.

3. Notice was issued to the opposite party no.2 vide order dated 26.03.2026. As per office report dated 22.04.2026, the report of the C.J.M. concerned has been received stating therein that notice has been served personally on the opposite party no.2.

4. Perusal of the report dated 16.04.2026 of the C.J.M. concerned it is evident that notice has been served on the opposite party no.2. The police report dated is also enclosed with the said report of the C.J.M. stating that notice has been served. It is only nine days since notice has been served.

5. The perusal of the said report shows that notice has been served personally on the opposite party no.2 but no one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2.

6. However, in the interest of justice, awaiting response to the said notice, the matter is adjourned for today.

7. Let the matter be listed on 06.05.2026 as fresh."

4. Today again despite service of notice on the opposite party no.2 and sufficient time being elapsed, no one appears on his behalf even in the revised list neither the opposite party no.2 is personally present in the Court. The Court thus proceeds to hear the matter.

5. This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant Shrikant Lodhi, with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 19.1.2026 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Hamirpur, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 67 of 2026, Rakesh Rajpoot and another vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 181 of 2025, under Sections 74,76, 333, 131, 118(1), 3(5), 109, 352, 351(3), 117(2) BNS and Section 3(1) r/w 3(2)va, 3(2)v, 3(1)w(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Jariya, District- Hamirpur, with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case.

6. The F.I.R. of the matter was lodged on 08.09.2025 by the opposite party no. 2/informant/victim against the appellant, Rakesh Rajpoot and Brijnandan Lodhi alleging therein that on 07.09.2025 at about 07:30 p.m. she was alone in her house wherein Rakesh Rajpoot entered in the house with a country made pistol and started forcing her on which she raised a shout, her mother Smt. Shanti Devi, husband Amarchandra came there and then he took a lathi which was kept there and attacked on him and in the same tore her clothes. She ran from there and informed about it to her father on phone who was coming from the fields. On receiving information, her father rushed to the place and as soon as he reached near the house, Shrikant Lodhi the younger brother of Rakesh Lodhi and Brijnandan his father assaulted her father with kulhari due to which he received injuries. He was taken to C.H.C., Sareela where he was found to be critical and after first aid referred to the Orai Medical College. She lives alone in the house and has a threat from the accused, her report be lodged and action be taken.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that role assigned to the appellant and Brijnandan is of assault with kulhari on the father of the informant. It is submitted that Amarchandra the father of the informant, was interrogated who stated of assault by Shrikant Lodhi and Brijnandan with a lathi on him and his brother Matadeen. It is submitted that Matadeen also reiterated the same version. It is submitted that both the said accused have assigned the role of assault by kulhari on Rakesh Rajpoot. It is submitted further that the injuries received by the two injured Matadeen and Amarchandra are simple in nature. The appellant is having no criminal history as stated in para-27 of the affidavit in support of bail application in appeal and is in jail since 13.09.2025.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and the appeal.

9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records it is evident that Matadeen received the following injuries on his person:-

"1. S/W of size 2-3cm over the right side of frontal region of skull, margin regular with complaint of pain.

2. Traumatic swelling with tenderness, deformity & restricted movement over the distal 1/3rd of left forearm area with complaint of pain.

3. B.P. 112/70 MMHG, P.R. 68 BPM, SPO2 99% on RA

MLC X Ray advised and refer to neurosx unit for further IX and T/T PT. is conscious and well oriented to time/place/person while doing MLC"

The same were found to be caused by hard and blunt object and injury no. 1 and 2 were kept under observation for X-ray.

10. Amar Chandra received the following injuries on his person:-

"1.S/w of size 4-5 cm over the right side of frontal region of skull, margin regular with complaint of pain.

2. s/w of size 5-6 cm over the left side of frontal region of skull, margin regular with complain of pain.

3. B.P. 118/76 MMHG, P.R. 70 BPM, SPO2 98% on RA"

MLC X Ray advised and refer to neurosx unit for further IX and T/T

PT. is semi conscious and not oriented to time/place/person while doing MLC.

The injuries were opined to be cause by hard and sharp object and the injury no. 1 and 2 were kept under observation.

11. Thus the fact remains that there are two injured persons who have received injuries on vital parts of the body being skull and there are to assailants assigned the role of assault on them. The appellant is the person who is previously known to the injured and as such there is no reason for false implication.

12. Looking to fact and circumstances of the case, nature of evidence and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to release the appellant on bail.

13. Accordingly, the appeal and the application for bail are hereby rejected.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Samit Gopal,J.)

May 6, 2026

Naresh