Vikas Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another

This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Deoria in Criminal Misc. 1st Bail Application No. 643 of 2025 (Vikas Rajbhar versus State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 203 of 2023, under Sections 354, 354D, 506, 509, 306, 511 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Bariyarpur, District-Deoria.

¶12

According to the complainant, the case was registered based on an incident that allegedly occurred on 21.09.2023. The First Information Report was lodged by the first informant namely Manoj Kumar against four named persons including the present appellant and the same has been registered as Case Crime No. 203 of 2023 under Sections 354, 354Gha, 506, 509 I.P.C. It is alleged that the appellant kept an evil eye on the victim and if she objects they threaten to kill her and kept chasing her. On 21.09.2023 the applicant surrounded the victim and threatened her to talk to him and gave a phone to her. Fearing him, she took mobile and came back home and in depression consumed intoxicating substance.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there four accused named in the F.I.R. and the applicant has not been assigned any

¶14

CRLA No. 4829 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

specific role. He next submits that from perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the main allegation was levelled against co-accused Dileep and the appellant has no concerned with the co-accused Dileep. Applicant has not committed any offence and the victim herself consumed the pesticide. The medical examination report of the victim does not corroborate the allegation levelled by the prosecution. The First Information Report was lodged with malice and does not present the facts clearly. The applicant did not use any caste-based slurs nor was he present at the scene. He has been wrongly named. The applicant/accused has no prior criminal history. It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 09.04.2025.

¶17

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said fact.

¶18

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.

¶19

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 below erred in rejecting the bail application. 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Let the appellant Vikas Rajbhar involved in the 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.

¶22

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

CRLA No. 4829 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶30

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶31

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶32

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

¶33

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶34

September 18, 2025 SY

¶35

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vikas Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Rajbhar 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