Sachin vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5479 of 2025

¶3

Sachin

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another			.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Anjali Tomar,	Singh Tomer, Inder Pal Singh	Gaurav Singh Tomar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Mohd.	Naushad, G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 87

¶7

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State are present.

¶9

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 - Sachin with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 07.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2228 of 2025 (Sachin vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No. 43 of 2020 under Sections 302, 504, 506 & 34 I.P.C. & 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act at Police Station Ratanpuri, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that false allegation against the appellant has been made by the informant, who has stated in the FIR that his brother Chandrapal was attacked by the appellant and the other two accused, Naresh and Jony @ Alok. The appellant has approached this Court to seek bail by filing Criminal Appeal No. 1939 of 2020, which was rejected on 17.11.2020. He again filed his second bail application in Criminal Appeal No. 6381 of 2023, which was also rejected on 27.7.2023. Prosecution in this case commenced way back in the year 2023, and merely 11 witnesses have been examined. All the witnesses of fact have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution's version. The other coaccused persons, namely Naresh and Jony @ Alok, were granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3105 of 2022 and 5339 of 2022 vide orders dated 20.4.2023 respectively. The appellant has

¶11

CRLA No. 5479 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

been languishing in jail since 7.4.2020, thus appellant is also entitled for bail, likewise other accused persons.

¶14

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that other formal witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution, and it is not proper to say that the prosecution's story has been thrashed by the witnesses who have turned hostile.

¶15

I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. Considering the other co-accused persons have been accorded bail by coordinate Bench of this Court, and the appellant has been in jail since 7.4.2020.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Let the appellant Sachin involved in in Case Crime No. 43 of 2020 under Sections 302, 504, 506 & 34 I.P.C. & 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act at Police Station Ratanpuri, District Muzaffar Nagar, 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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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

¶24

CRLA No. 5479 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

October 9, 2025 Ujjawal

¶29

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶30

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

Sachin v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin 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

Saleem vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Raja @ Rajeshwar Maurya vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishi vs State of U.P. and Another

Gufran Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Lawaniya vs State of U.P. and Another