Chhotey Lal Lodh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Jay Kumar Soni, Saurabh Srivastava : : G.A. Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J. (Order on I.A. / C.M.A. No. 1 of 2024 i.e. Bail Application)

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. This is first bail application of the present applicant- appellant Chhotey Lal in Session Trial No. 194 of 2016, State Vs. Ram Sewak Lodh and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 297 of 2015, P.S. Shivgarh, District Raebareli wherein the appellant/applicant has been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced for maximum punishment of life imprisonment with fine stipulations.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the present appellant remained on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail. Though during the trial period he remained in jail for eight months, after the conviction order he is in jail w.e.f. 18.5.2024. The present appellant is not having any criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Since there was no eye- witness account or last seen evidence or any incriminating material or evidence against the present appellant-applicant, therefore, he was granted 2 CRLA No. 2117 of 2024 bail during the trial. The alleged recovery of the weapon has been made on the pointing out of the appellant. The appellant has allegedly stated that this was the weapon which was used to commit the crime in question by the elder brother of the appellant, Ram Sewak (father of the deceased). He has further stated that the weapon in question has neither been examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory nor any endeavor has been made by the investigating agency to connect the weapon with the crime in question.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that during the investigation the help of dog-squad was taken by the investigating agency and the dog-squad had pointed towards the house of Uday Raj who was allegedly having relation with the deceased and the father of the deceased and his family was against that relation. The deceased became pregnant out of her relation with Uday Raj and Uday Raj has been examined as P.W.-4 who admitted this fact. P.W.-3 Suraj Bhan who is brother of present appellant has deposed before the court that when the investigating agency apprehended Uday Raj and took him to the police station and kept him for 10-12 days, Uday Raj had provided some information to the investigating agency but Uday Raj has not been sent to the jail / judicial custody although he was named in the F.I.R. This fact was admitted by Uday Raj in his deposition.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that the story of honour-killing has been created by the investigating agency without having any material available or evidence to that effect. As per Sri Srivastav, if the specialized dogs had reached the house of Uday Raj after tracing the dead body of the deceased and he was kept in police station for 10-12 days then it is beyond any apprehension as to why he was not sent for judicial custody and the present appellant and his brother who is father of the deceased have been implicated in the present case and have been sent to the judicial custody. On account of aforesaid reason he was granted bail during the trial.

6. Sri Srivastav has further stated that the present appellant has been convicted only on the basis of circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete and there are various flaws in the prosecution story. There are two daughters of the present appellant and they have attained the marriageable age and since the present appellant is in jail, 3 CRLA No. 2117 of 2024 therefore, he is unable to make proper arrangement for the marriage of his daughters. He has submitted that as and when the appeal is listed for final hearing he shall argue the appeal on merits and shall not take unnecessary adjournment.

7. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that this is a case where the circumstances are indicating and suggesting that this is a case of honour-killing. So far as the missing chain of circumstantial evidence is concerned Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned AGA has stated that he shall argue these points at the time of final hearing.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties; the material available on record and without entering into the merits of the appeal; considering the fact that present appellant remained on bail during trial; appellant did not misuse the liberty of bail; prima-facie there are missing links in the circumstantial evidence and apparent lacuna in the prosecution story; the named accused Uday Raj who was allegedly having relation with the deceased was kept in police station for 10-12 days after his apprehension on the basis of pointing of dog-squad, he has not been arrested; despite the specific observation of the learned trial court that there is inconsistency in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and defect in the investigation and the undertaking that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail; we are hereby convinced that he may be enlarged on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of.

10. Let the appellant- Chhotey Lal Lodh, convict of the aforesaid sessions trial, 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.

11. 50% fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of four weeks, failing which, the bail granted to the appellant shall stand cancelled. However, the remaining 50% fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall remain stayed.

12. It is made clear that during bail, if the appellant commits any offence, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

13. As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the 4 CRLA No. 2117 of 2024 same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the Trial Court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

14. Office is directed to prepare the paper-book of the case, if not already prepared and supply a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the parties as per rules.

15. List this appeal for final hearing in the month of January, 2026. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) December 8, 2025 Om

Jay Kumar Soni, Saurabh Srivastava : : G.A. Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J. (Order on I.A. / C.M.A. No. 1 of 2024 i.e. Bail Application)

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. This is first bail application of the present applicant- appellant Chhotey Lal in Session Trial No. 194 of 2016, State Vs. Ram Sewak Lodh and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 297 of 2015, P.S. Shivgarh, District Raebareli wherein the appellant/applicant has been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced for maximum punishment of life imprisonment with fine stipulations.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the present appellant remained on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail. Though during the trial period he remained in jail for eight months, after the conviction order he is in jail w.e.f. 18.5.2024. The present appellant is not having any criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Since there was no eye- witness account or last seen evidence or any incriminating material or evidence against the present appellant-applicant, therefore, he was granted 2 CRLA No. 2117 of 2024 bail during the trial. The alleged recovery of the weapon has been made on the pointing out of the appellant. The appellant has allegedly stated that this was the weapon which was used to commit the crime in question by the elder brother of the appellant, Ram Sewak (father of the deceased). He has further stated that the weapon in question has neither been examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory nor any endeavor has been made by the investigating agency to connect the weapon with the crime in question.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that during the investigation the help of dog-squad was taken by the investigating agency and the dog-squad had pointed towards the house of Uday Raj who was allegedly having relation with the deceased and the father of the deceased and his family was against that relation. The deceased became pregnant out of her relation with Uday Raj and Uday Raj has been examined as P.W.-4 who admitted this fact. P.W.-3 Suraj Bhan who is brother of present appellant has deposed before the court that when the investigating agency apprehended Uday Raj and took him to the police station and kept him for 10-12 days, Uday Raj had provided some information to the investigating agency but Uday Raj has not been sent to the jail / judicial custody although he was named in the F.I.R. This fact was admitted by Uday Raj in his deposition.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further stated that the story of honour-killing has been created by the investigating agency without having any material available or evidence to that effect. As per Sri Srivastav, if the specialized dogs had reached the house of Uday Raj after tracing the dead body of the deceased and he was kept in police station for 10-12 days then it is beyond any apprehension as to why he was not sent for judicial custody and the present appellant and his brother who is father of the deceased have been implicated in the present case and have been sent to the judicial custody. On account of aforesaid reason he was granted bail during the trial.

6. Sri Srivastav has further stated that the present appellant has been convicted only on the basis of circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete and there are various flaws in the prosecution story. There are two daughters of the present appellant and they have attained the marriageable age and since the present appellant is in jail, 3 CRLA No. 2117 of 2024 therefore, he is unable to make proper arrangement for the marriage of his daughters. He has submitted that as and when the appeal is listed for final hearing he shall argue the appeal on merits and shall not take unnecessary adjournment.

7. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that this is a case where the circumstances are indicating and suggesting that this is a case of honour-killing. So far as the missing chain of circumstantial evidence is concerned Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned AGA has stated that he shall argue these points at the time of final hearing.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties; the material available on record and without entering into the merits of the appeal; considering the fact that present appellant remained on bail during trial; appellant did not misuse the liberty of bail; prima-facie there are missing links in the circumstantial evidence and apparent lacuna in the prosecution story; the named accused Uday Raj who was allegedly having relation with the deceased was kept in police station for 10-12 days after his apprehension on the basis of pointing of dog-squad, he has not been arrested; despite the specific observation of the learned trial court that there is inconsistency in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and defect in the investigation and the undertaking that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail; we are hereby convinced that he may be enlarged on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of.

10. Let the appellant- Chhotey Lal Lodh, convict of the aforesaid sessions trial, 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.

11. 50% fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of four weeks, failing which, the bail granted to the appellant shall stand cancelled. However, the remaining 50% fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall remain stayed.

12. It is made clear that during bail, if the appellant commits any offence, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

13. As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the 4 CRLA No. 2117 of 2024 same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the Trial Court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

14. Office is directed to prepare the paper-book of the case, if not already prepared and supply a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the parties as per rules.

15. List this appeal for final hearing in the month of January, 2026. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) December 8, 2025 Om