# Suresh Lodhi v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 595 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-01-13 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6338 of 2025 - **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suresh-lodhi-v-state-of-u-p-53947 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 1 All. Suresh Lodhi Vs. State of U.P. 595 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, in my view, there is no force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. There is no good ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the accused / opposite party no.2 as no violation of any of the conditions imposed while granting anticipatory bail by the court to the accused has been made by her. The application is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected. 18. Before parting, it would be apt to note that the Court often comes across the cases where it appears that although nature, scope and object of an application seeking exemption of the personal attendance of an accused on a particular date is different from that of an application to adjourn the proceedings but the Presiding Officers often get confused and an exemption application is treated as an adjournment application by them which is not the correct notion of law. Hence, to remind them of the real nature and object of the application of both kinds, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to circulate copy of this judgment to all District and Sessions Judges, Principal Judges of Family Courts, and Presiding Officers of Commercial Courts and further to all the Judicial Officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh for information and compliance. 19. This Court is thankful to Shri Pradeep Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ali Jamal Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Nitesh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mr. Akash Verma, Research Associate of this Court for ably assisting the Court. ---------- (2026) 1 ILRA 595 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 13.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6338 of 2025 Suresh Lodhi ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether the accused-applicant (who has killed his wife by strangulation) is entitled to bail in the second bail application? HEADNOTES Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) - Section 161 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.) - Section 103(1), - Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 193 - Second Bail application - filed by accused-husband - seeking bail in a criminal proceedings initiated under Section 103(1) B.N.S. - earlier his, first Bail was not pressed, since at that time prosecution evidence is going on - FIR - offence of wife's death by strangulation - investigation revealed video-graphed statement of minor daughter implicating father - inquest and post-mortem confirmed ante-mortem strangulation - trial initiated, witnesses examined, some turned hostile - applicant pleaded that hostile witnesses entitle him to bail - court find that - (i) Second bail application was filed without awaiting outcome of trial, - Hostile witnesses do not automatically entitle the 596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES accused to bail; their testimony can still be scrutinized and partially relied upon, - (iii) Medical evidence (horizontal ligature mark) rules out suicide and supports homicidal strangulation, - (iv) Applicant appears to be influencing witnesses even while incarcerated, - (v) Gravity of offense (murder within matrimonial home) and applicant's absconding conduct weigh against bail - held - no ground for enlargement on bail - consequently, second bail application is rejected - directions issued to the trial court to proceed uninfluenced by observations. (Para - 14, 15, 16, 17) Bail Application Rejected. (E-11) CASE LAW CITED State v. Sanjeev Nanda (2012) 8 SCC 450, State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra (1996) 10 SCC 360, K. Anbazhagan v. Supt. of Police (2004) 3 SCC 767, Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1, Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374. LIST OF ACTS Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.) - Section 103(1), Indian Penal Code (IPC). LIST OF KEYWORDS Bail application - Hostile witness - Strangulation - Horizontal ligature mark - Suicide vs. homicide - Influence on witnesses - Absconding accused. CASE ARISING FROM Case Crime No. 336 of 2024, Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao, Uttar Pradesh. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Aditya Prakash. Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Mayank Sinha, A.G.A. (Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) 1. Heard Sri Aditya Prakash, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Mayank Sinha, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This is second application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 336 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao. 3. After advancing submissions in support of the first Bail Application No. 11960/2024, the learned Senior Advocate representing the applicant had stated that prosecution evidence was going on and the applicant would await the outcome of the trial and would not press the bail application and, therefore, the first bail application was rejected by means of an order dated 16.05.2025. This second bail application has been filed on 07.07.2025 without awaiting the outcome of trial. 4. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 12.07.2024, stating that the informant?s niece had got married to the applicant about 20 years ago. He got information that the applicant had killed his wife by strangulating her. Upon reaching the 1 All. Suresh Lodhi Vs. State of U.P. 597 applicant?s home, the informant found the dead body of his niece lying on the floor and the applicant had ran away from his home. 5. The inquest report mentions a ligature mark around the neck. Blood had oozed out from ears and nose. The inquest proceeding was witnessed by five persons, not including the applicant. The witnesses expressed opinion that the deceased had been killed by strangulating with a saree. 6. The post-mortem examination report mentions a ligature mark present in front of neck, going backwards, horizontally around the neck. There was a contused swelling over right Occipitoparital region of head and a contusion over right side of chest. The cause of death has been opined to be due to ante-mortem strangulation and all the injuries were ante mortem injuries. 7. The investigating officer recorded statement of the complainant, the deceased?s sister and the deceased?s daughter. The deceased?s daughter aged about 14 years stated that her father (the applicant) had beaten up her mother and thereafter he killed her and left the home. This statement was videographed. 8. The complainant has been examined as PW-1 and he stated that the deceased used to suffer from abdomen pain and the family members of her husband had told that she had said that she would commit suicide. This witness was declared hostile. During cross-examination by the defense counsel, PW-1 stated that after the incident, he came to know from the villagers that his niece had committed suicide. He had inquired from the two daughters of the deceased, who stated that their mother was suffering from abdominal pain and, therefore, she committed suicide by hanging. 9. A daughter of the deceased has been examined as PW-2 and she stated that two persons had entered her house in the night of the incident. She did not recognize those persons. Her father was not present. Her younger brother went to her mother?s room at about 02:00 a.m. and found her mother dead. Her brother woke her up and then she also went to the mother?s room and found her lying dead on the floor. Thereafter she told about it to her grandmother. She did not know as to how did her mother die. When the two persons came there she was sleeping. An altercation took place between those persons and her mother and thereupon she woke up and went inside the room of her mother. Those two persons had covered their faces with clothes and were strangulating her mother. One was carrying a knife and both of them had threatened her. At this stage this witness was declared hostile. 10. During cross examination by the defense counsel, PW-2 stated that her father was languishing in jail and she, her brother and sister want that he should be released from jail and all of them should live together. Whenever she visits her father in the jail, her father requests her to get him free from incarceration. She further stated that two thieves had entered the house, strangulated her mother and snatched away the jewelry worn by her. 11. At this stage the learned AGA has drawn attention of the Court to the inquest report, which mentions that a nose-pin of yellow metal was present in nose of the dead body, two bangles of yellow color were present in each of the hands and a ring of yellow metal was also present on 598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES her finger. Therefore, the statement that thieves had snatched away her jewelry is false on the face of the record. Although in the examination-in chief the PW2 had stated that the two persons who had killed her mother had covered their faces with clothes, during cross-examination she stated that both the thieves had not covered their faces but she did not recognize them. 12. The learned counsel for the applicant had submitted that as both the prosecution witnesses including the complainant and daughter of the deceased have turned hostile, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 13. In State v. Sanjeev Nanda: (2012) 8 SCC 450, the Hon?ble Supreme Court observed that: - "99. Witness turning hostile is a major disturbing factor faced by the criminal courts in India. Reasons are many for the witnesses turning hostile, but of late, we see, especially in high profile cases, there is a regularity in the witnesses turning hostile, either due to monetary consideration or by other tempting offers which undermine the entire criminal justice system and people carry the impression that the mighty and powerful can always get away from the clutches of law, thereby eroding people's faith in the system. 100. This Court in State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra [(1996) 10 SCC 360] held that it is equally settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness could not be totally rejected, if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but it can be subjected to closest scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted. In K. Anbazhagan v. Supt. of Police [(2004) 3 SCC 767], this Court held that if a court finds that in the process the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, it may after reading and considering the evidence of the witness as a whole, with due caution, accept, in the light of the evidence on the record that part of his testimony which it finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. This is exactly what was done in the instant case by both the trial court and the High Court and they found the accused guilty. 101. We cannot, however, close our eyes to the disturbing fact in the instant case where even the injured witness, who was present on the spot, turned hostile. This Court in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 6 SCC 1] and in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat [(2006) 3 SCC 374] had highlighted the glaring defects in the system like non-recording of the statements correctly by the police and the retraction of the statements by the prosecution witness due to intimidation, inducement and other methods of manipulation. Courts, however, cannot shut their eyes to the reality. If a witness becomes hostile to subvert the judicial process, the court shall not stand as a mute spectator and every effort should be made to bring home the truth. Criminal justice system cannot be overturned by those gullible witnesses who act under pressure, inducement or intimidation. Further, Section 193 IPC imposes punishment for giving false evidence but is seldom invoked." (Emphasis added) 14. The story that the deceased had committed suicide is belied from the post-mortem examination report which mentions presence of a horizontal ligature mark around the neck of the 1 All. Netram Vs. State of U.P. 599 deceased, which is not possible in case of a suicide and which is only possible in case of strangulation by some other person. Therefore, it appears that the deceased has been killed by strangulation inside her matrimonial home. Although the daughter of the deceased has resiled from her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the statement was videographed and, therefore, it is apparent that the deceased?s daughter has turned hostile under influence of the applicant who is her father and as per the statement of PW-2 who keeps on asking his daughter (PW-2) to help him in coming out of the prison. 15. There are serious discrepancies in the statement of the PW-2 even while helping the applicant as at one place she said that she had not seen anyone killing the deceased while at the other place she said that two thieves had killed her. At one place she says that the two persons had covered their faces and at another place she says that their faces were not covered. The story of thieves having stolen away some jewelry is proved to be false from the inquest report which mentions presence of jewelry on the dead body. 16. In these circumstances, prima facie, it appears that even while remaining incarcerated, the applicant is influencing the prosecution witnesses. The applicant is accused of killing his wife by strangulation in side his house. The hypothesis of suicide being projected by the defense Counsel, is not supported by the horizontal ligature mark around neck of the dead body and this mark suggests strangulation by some other person. The applicant is the husband of the deceased, he is said to have absconded after the incident and he has not witnessed the inquest proceeding. Therefore, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the fact of cause do not warrant enlargement of the applicant on bail. 17. The second bail application of the applicant is rejected. 18. It is clarified that the trial Court shall conclude the trial without being influenced by any observation made in this order. ---------- (2026) 1 ILRA 599 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17430 of 2024 Netram ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ....Opposite Party ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether prolonged delay in trial and long incarceration of the accused (husband in a dowry death case) entitles him to bail despite seriousness of the offence.