Sanjeet v. State of U.P

1. Heard Ms. Zulekha Begum the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite paty-1.

2. Perused the record.

3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Sanjeet Lodhi seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 35 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station- Sultanpur, Ghosh, District-Fatehpur during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 466 of 2020 (State Vs. Sanjeet Lodhi) now pending in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Fatehpur.

4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a an order dated 15.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39469 of 2021 (Sanjeet Vs. State of U.P..). For ready reference, the order dated 15.03.2022 is reproduced herein-under: "1. Heard Mr. Devendra Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned AGA for State.

2. This bail application has been filed by applicant, Sanjeet seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.35 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Sultanpur Ghosh, District Fatehpur during pendency of Sessions Trial No.466 of 2020 (State Vs. Sanjeet) arising out of the aforementioned case crime number and now pending in the Court of District Judge, Fatehpur.

3. At the very outset learned AGA contends that applicant is the husband 2 BAIL No. 17377 of 2025 of the deceased. As per the postmortem report of the deceased, the cause of death is strangulation. Placing reliance upon Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, learned AGA contends that burden is upon the applicant to explain the injury sustained by the deceased. However, aforesaid burden has not been discharged. As such, the applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court.

4. When confronted with above, learned counsel for the applicant could not overcome the same.

5. In view of above, present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected. It is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 15.3.2022"

5. Learned counsel for applicant in support of present repeat application for bail submits that though applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named and charge sheeted accused as well as facing trial during incarceration yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant is in jail since 16.05.2020. As such, on date applicant has undergone more than five years and four months incarceration.

6. Upon completion of statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 29.05.2020 in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. After submission of aforementioned charge-sheet/police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the concerned Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. Since offence complained of is cognizable by the court of Sessions, therefore, the concerned Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of Sessions. As a result, Sessions Trial No. 466 of 2020 (State Vs. Sanjeet Lodhi) came to be registered.

7. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial of applicant. He accordingly framed charges against applicant, who is a charge sheeted accused. Applicant denied the same and demanded trial. Resultantly, the trial procedure commenced.

8. Prosecution in discharge of its burden to bring home the charges so framed against applicant has upto this stage adduced two prosecution witnesses of fact i.e. P.W.-1, Suresh Kumar (first informant) and P.W.2, Shayamkali (mother of the deceased). In spite of the fact that a period of more than five years has rolled by, no other prosecution witness has been 3 BAIL No. 17377 of 2025 adduced by the prosecution. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the trial is not proceeding at the required pace but a snail's pace. Since applicant is in jail, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for the delay in conclusion /progress of trial. Placing reliance upon the judgement of Supreme Court in A. R. Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225, the learned counsel for applicant contends that right to speedy trial is now a fundamental right of an accused. However, on account of lackadaisical approach of the prosecution in the pursuing the trial, aforementioned fundamental right of applicant stands infringed. She therefore submits that in view of above, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

9. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Since the statements of first informant and the mother of the deceased have already been recorded before court below, therefore, in case the applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality it cannot be said that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial. She therefore submits that no good or justifiable ground now exists so as to prolong the incarceration of applicant during the pendency of trial. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate in the conclusion of trial.

10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed this repeat application for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that since applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named as well as charge sheeted accused and facing trial during incarceration, therefore, applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, the cause of death of deceased is strangulation i.e. a deliberate criminal act. Placing reliance upon Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the learned A.G.A. submits that since the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred in the house of applicant, therefore, burden is upon applicant himself to explain the manner of occurrence. However, the said burden has not yet been discharged. The deceased was a young lady aged about 21 years, who has died in unnatural circumstances. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. would thus submit that considering the nature and gravity of offence and the sentence prescribed for the offence complained of, the period of incarceration undergone by applicant by itself cannot be so sufficient a ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. submits that no new, good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to enlarge 4 BAIL No. 17377 of 2025 the applicant on bail during the pendency of trial. As such, present repeat application for bail is liable to be rejected.

11. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant only reiterated the submissions earlier urged by her. However, she could not dislodge the same.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant this Court finds that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this repeat application for bail as noted herein above could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. Considering the nature and gravity of offence, the role of applicant in the crime in question as noted herein above and irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of present repeat application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not find any new, good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.

13. As a result, the present repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

14. It is accordingly rejected. October 10, 2025 YK (Rajeev Misra,J.) YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Ms. Zulekha Begum the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite paty-1.

2. Perused the record.

3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Sanjeet Lodhi seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 35 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station- Sultanpur, Ghosh, District-Fatehpur during the pendency of trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 466 of 2020 (State Vs. Sanjeet Lodhi) now pending in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Fatehpur.

4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court by a an order dated 15.03.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39469 of 2021 (Sanjeet Vs. State of U.P..). For ready reference, the order dated 15.03.2022 is reproduced herein-under: "1. Heard Mr. Devendra Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned AGA for State.

2. This bail application has been filed by applicant, Sanjeet seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.35 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 DP Act, Police Station Sultanpur Ghosh, District Fatehpur during pendency of Sessions Trial No.466 of 2020 (State Vs. Sanjeet) arising out of the aforementioned case crime number and now pending in the Court of District Judge, Fatehpur.

3. At the very outset learned AGA contends that applicant is the husband 2 BAIL No. 17377 of 2025 of the deceased. As per the postmortem report of the deceased, the cause of death is strangulation. Placing reliance upon Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, learned AGA contends that burden is upon the applicant to explain the injury sustained by the deceased. However, aforesaid burden has not been discharged. As such, the applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court.

4. When confronted with above, learned counsel for the applicant could not overcome the same.

5. In view of above, present application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected. It is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 15.3.2022"

5. Learned counsel for applicant in support of present repeat application for bail submits that though applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named and charge sheeted accused as well as facing trial during incarceration yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant is in jail since 16.05.2020. As such, on date applicant has undergone more than five years and four months incarceration.

6. Upon completion of statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 29.05.2020 in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. After submission of aforementioned charge-sheet/police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the concerned Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. Since offence complained of is cognizable by the court of Sessions, therefore, the concerned Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the court of Sessions. As a result, Sessions Trial No. 466 of 2020 (State Vs. Sanjeet Lodhi) came to be registered.

7. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial of applicant. He accordingly framed charges against applicant, who is a charge sheeted accused. Applicant denied the same and demanded trial. Resultantly, the trial procedure commenced.

8. Prosecution in discharge of its burden to bring home the charges so framed against applicant has upto this stage adduced two prosecution witnesses of fact i.e. P.W.-1, Suresh Kumar (first informant) and P.W.2, Shayamkali (mother of the deceased). In spite of the fact that a period of more than five years has rolled by, no other prosecution witness has been 3 BAIL No. 17377 of 2025 adduced by the prosecution. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the trial is not proceeding at the required pace but a snail's pace. Since applicant is in jail, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for the delay in conclusion /progress of trial. Placing reliance upon the judgement of Supreme Court in A. R. Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225, the learned counsel for applicant contends that right to speedy trial is now a fundamental right of an accused. However, on account of lackadaisical approach of the prosecution in the pursuing the trial, aforementioned fundamental right of applicant stands infringed. She therefore submits that in view of above, applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

9. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Since the statements of first informant and the mother of the deceased have already been recorded before court below, therefore, in case the applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality it cannot be said that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall either terrorize the witnesses or shall hamper the course of trial. She therefore submits that no good or justifiable ground now exists so as to prolong the incarceration of applicant during the pendency of trial. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail then in that eventuality he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate in the conclusion of trial.

10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State has vehemently opposed this repeat application for bail. Learned A.G.A. submits that since applicant is the husband of the deceased, a named as well as charge sheeted accused and facing trial during incarceration, therefore, applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. In the opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, the cause of death of deceased is strangulation i.e. a deliberate criminal act. Placing reliance upon Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the learned A.G.A. submits that since the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings has occurred in the house of applicant, therefore, burden is upon applicant himself to explain the manner of occurrence. However, the said burden has not yet been discharged. The deceased was a young lady aged about 21 years, who has died in unnatural circumstances. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. would thus submit that considering the nature and gravity of offence and the sentence prescribed for the offence complained of, the period of incarceration undergone by applicant by itself cannot be so sufficient a ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. submits that no new, good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to enlarge 4 BAIL No. 17377 of 2025 the applicant on bail during the pendency of trial. As such, present repeat application for bail is liable to be rejected.

11. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant only reiterated the submissions earlier urged by her. However, she could not dislodge the same.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon consideration of material on record, evidence, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made as well as complicity of applicant this Court finds that objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this repeat application for bail as noted herein above could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage. Considering the nature and gravity of offence, the role of applicant in the crime in question as noted herein above and irrespective of the varied submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of present repeat application for bail but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court does not find any new, good or sufficient ground so as to enlarge the applicant on bail.

13. As a result, the present repeat application for bail fails and is liable to be rejected.

14. It is accordingly rejected. October 10, 2025 YK (Rajeev Misra,J.) YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad