Hriom Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134147

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4212 of 2025

Appellant :- Hriom Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Sujan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today, taken on record. In this case notice has already been served upon the informant.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant- Hariom Yadav to set aside the order dated 28.04.2025 in Bail Application No.1952 of 2025 and to release him on bail in Case Crime No.452 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 310(2) of B.N.S. 2023 R/w Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) R/w section 3(1)R,S of SC/ST Act, P.S. Gola, District Gorakhpur.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the entire record.

¶9

According to the prosecution case, the FIR of the incident has been lodged on the next day of the incident. In the present case there is 18 witnesses, but till date no witness has been examined. The injured Abhishek got medically examined on 28.07.2024 and doctor found as many as 5 injuries on his body, out of which three injuries are complaint of pain on different parts of the body and remaining two injuries are contusion in linear abrasion.

¶10

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. In the present case all the co-accused persons have been released on bail except the present appellant. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant, and no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant or at his pointing out. The appellant is having no criminal history and he is in jail since 07.04.2025. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the

¶11

appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposing the prayer for bail had have submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶13

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.

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below 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 appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶15

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside.

¶16

Let the appellant- Hariom Yadav involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶21

(v) The appellant 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.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the

¶23

prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.8.2025 RPD

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hriom 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nand Kishor Parashar vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sunita Moorjani vs State of U.P. and Another

Pooja Yadav vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sanjay vs State of U.P.

Soni @ Jaitun vs State of U.P. and Another

Asha Devi vs State of U.P. and 6 Others