Rohit Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rohit Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; bail-rejection order of 13.12.2024 set aside; appellant Rohit (Case Crime No. 598 of 2024, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal) released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to five conditions (non-tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; appearance before trial court on fixed dates unless exempted; no commission of similar offence; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts), with verification of sureties before issuing the release order; breach of any condition permits the court concerned to take coercive action for the accused's appearance or to cancel the bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether appellant Rohit, whose bail application was rejected on 13.12.2024, has made out a case for bail warranting that the appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act succeed and the bail-rejection order be set aside.

Court's answer

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and severity of punishment, the appellant has made out a case for bail.

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the appellant's bail application is set aside.

Key takeaways

The appellant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to five conduct conditions (no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; appearance before the trial court unless exempted; no committing of a similar offence; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure), with sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order; breach of any condition entitles the court concerned to take appropriate coercive action or cancel the bail.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 87; Anil Kumar-X, J.), Criminal Appeal No. 4340 of 2025, decided October 10, 2025 — Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed by appellant Rohit against the bail rejection order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Additional District Special Judge (Judge/Sambhal Chandausi) in Application No. 255 of 2024 (First Bail Computer Registration No. 2579 of 2024) arising out of Case Crime No. 598 of 2024, under sections 126(2), 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 125, 3(5) B.N.S. and section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal. Appellant's counsel pleaded innocence and false implication, absence of any specific role assigned to any assailant, and parity with co-accused Bahadur who was granted bail by this Court on 11.9.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 12815 of 2024 (Bahadur vs. State of U.P.); learned AGA opposed. Court held that, considering the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and severity of punishment, the appellant had made out a case for bail; appeal allowed and bail-rejection order set aside; appellant ordered released on bail on a personal bond with two sureties each in like amount, subject to five conduct conditions, breach of any of which permits coercive action or cancellation of bail.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4340 of 2025

Rohit

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Jagdish Sharan Tomar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 87

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned AGA for the State.

As per office report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose the appeal.

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant - Rohit with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 13.12.2024 passed by learned Additional District Special Judge, Judge/Sambhal Chandausi, at application No. 255 of & Sessions. (S.C./S.T. Act) in 2024, First Bail Computer Registration No. 2579 of 2024, Rohit Vs. State of U.P. arising out of case crime No. 598 of 2024, under sections 126(2), 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 125, 3(5) B.N.S. and section 3(2)5 S.C./ S.T. Act, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been alleged that the appellant, along with other co-accused person, assaulted the informant and his sister. However, the informant has not assigned any specific role to any of the assailants. One of the co-accused Bahadur has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.9.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 12815 of 2024 (Bahadur vs. State of U.P.) case of appellant is at par with coaccused.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.

CRLA No. 4340 of 2025

2

I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record.

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.

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

Let the appellant Rohit involved in Case Crime No. 598 of 2024, under sections 126(2), 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 125, 3(5) B.N.S. and section 3(2)5 S.C./ S.T. Act, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal, 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.

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

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

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

(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.

(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.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted.

October 10, 2025 Ujjawal

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad