Ajay @ Vijay Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Case called out in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. Heard learned counsel for appellant and the learned AGA for State.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.04.2025 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), arising out of Case Crime No.51 of 2025, under section 352, 351(2), 109(1) BNS and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act and 3/25/27 of Arms Act, at Police Station Harduaganj, District Aligarh.

¶13

Informant-Rohit Kumar alleged in FIR that his brother was abused by appellant and other co-accused Arjun Thakur on Instagram ID. They also used casteist slur against his brother. The alleged abusing from the Instagram of appellant occurred on 10.2.2025. On the same day at about 8:30 PM, appellant along with other co-accused-Arjun Thakur came and fired upon his brother, who sustained bullet injury in his leg.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that alleged incident occurred on 10.2.2025. FIR was lodged on 12.2.2025. Injured-Vivek Kumar was brought at Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Ram Ghar Road Aligarh. His injuries were noted and he was referred to JMU, Aligarh for necessary examination and treatment. Inspite of approaching the above

¶15

CRLA No. 4843 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

hospital, injured was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. It has been mentioned in the prescription of injured issued by Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi that he suffered a gunshot injury on 10.2.2025 at about 8:00 PM by known person. Name of the known person has been disclosed as Rahul. It was submitted that incident which allegedly took place on 10.2.2025 was twisted and directed against the present appellant when FIR was lodged by informant. Informant and his brother out of ill will have alleged that the appellant and other co-accused have fired upon the injured. History disclosed by injured before Safadajung Hospital, New Delhi is sufficient to disclose that alleged injuries were not caused by appellant, rather it was caused by another person Rahul. Hence, appellant is entitled to bail.

¶18

Sri Kishan Kant Gupta, learned AGA for State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that name of appellant has been mentioned in the FIR and he has been assigned the role of firing upon injured . Even the injured has stated in his statement before the Investigating officer that he was fired upon by appellant. Hence, appellant is not entitled to bail.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶20

The prescription of injured issued by Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi mentioned that the injured suffered bullet injury, which was caused by some known person Rahul at a wedding ceremony.

¶21

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

¶22

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 appellants have made out a case for bail.

¶23

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

¶24

Let the appellant- Ajay @ Vijay Yadav involved in Case Crime No.51 of 2025, under section 352, 351(2), 109(1) BNS and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act and 3/25/27 of Arms Act, at Police Station Harduaganj, District Aligarh , 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.

¶25

CRLA No. 4843 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(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.

¶31

(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.

¶32

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

¶33

November 18, 2025 Mukesh

¶34

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay @ Vijay Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay @ Vijay 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

Mrityunjay Datta Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manish Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. and Another

Tej Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Gulafsha vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Varsha Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another