Rahul Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:120710

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1910 of 2025

Appellant :- Rahul Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ved Byas Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

And

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1924 of 2025

¶7

Appellant :- Pintu Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ved Byas Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶9

Since the above two criminal appeals arise out of same crime number and relate to the same dispute, they are being disposed of by a common order.

¶10

Compliance affidavits filed today by the learned A.G.A. in both the appeals are taken on record. The said affidavits demonstrate that notice upon the informant / opposite party no.2 has been served.

¶11

However, despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the informant / opposite party no.2 in both the appeals when the case was called out.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State in both the appeals and perused the entire record.

¶13

The above two criminal appeals under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been preferred by the appellants - Rahul Yadav and Pintu Yadav with the prayer to allow the appeals, set aside the bail rejection order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria and release the appellants on bail in Case Crime No. 134 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307,

¶14

504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Baghach Ghat, District - Deoria.

¶15

On account of some land dispute the named accused persons including the present appellants came to the spot and hurled abuses by caste related words and when it was protested by the injured Khoob Lal, the accused persons started beating him and his son, and during course of occurrence his wife Chiraiyya Devi and daughter Suganti also sustained injuries. The injured were taken to the hospital and were medically examined. FIR was lodged and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against all the accused persons.

¶16

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that prosecution in this case has not come with clean hands. The real fact of the matter is that on account of some land dispute the informant party started making assault upon the accused persons and they also sustained injuries in the occurrence but the FIR from accused side was not lodged by the police, hence an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR was moved, which is still pending before the Court. It is also submitted that the police under the influence of the informant side lodged the FIR. The injuries caused to the injured persons are simple in nature and even injuries no.5 and 6 of the main injured Khoob Lal were noted simple in nature by the doctor who firstly medically examined the injured but however in further medical report the said injuries were opined dangerous to life by Dr. Amit Jaiswal. It is also submitted that the injured was referred for eye surgeon but there is no report of eye surgeon on record. It is also submitted that the accused persons also sustained injuries but the prosecution failed to explain the injuries of the accused persons. It is also submitted that no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused person in the incident. Although in the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that it was the appellant Rahul who caused severe injury to Khoob Lal, the father of the informant but during the course of investigation, neither the informant nor any injured person assigned any specific role of assault to the present appellants. It is also submitted that the named co-accused Surendra Yadav, having similar role, has been granted bail by this Court by allowing the Criminal Appeal No.10817 of 2024 vide order dated 9.1.2025. The role of the appellants is not distinguishable with the

¶17

role of co-accused, who has been enlarged on bail by this Court. It is further submitted that the appellants are having no criminal history to their credit. The trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant Rahul Yadav is languishing in jail since 13.1.2025 whereas appellant Pintu Yadav is in jail since 21.1.2025. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail applications of the appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶18

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal / bail application and it has been submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the injured persons belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 20.2.2025. It has been submitted that serious and grievous injuries have been caused to the injured persons from the informant side and the injuries sustained by the father of the informant were dangerous to life, however, during course of argument it has been fairly conceded that in the same occurrence some injuries, although simple in nature, were caused to the accused side as well.

¶19

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶20

Prima facie, it appears to be a case of free fight wherein the FIR of the informant side has been lodged and the accused side is still trying for registration of the FIR and an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is still pending.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeals are to be allowed.

¶22

Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants is, hereby, setaside.

¶23

Let appellants - Rahul Yadav and Pintu Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 134 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324,

¶24

307, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Baghach Ghat, District - Deoria be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶25

(i) The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶26

(ii) The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶27

(iii) The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶28

(iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶29

(v) The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶30

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

¶31

Order Date :- 22.7.2025 ss

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sarita vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Suraiya Bano vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Lata Singh Alias Shivani Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay vs State of U.P. and Another

Prakhar Tripathi vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another