Rahul Pal vs State of U.P. and Another

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 - Rahul Pal with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 28.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act/Additional Sessions Judge Court No.2 Etawah in Bail Application No. 794 of 2025 (Rahul Pal Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 113 of 2024 under section 333, 351(3), 103(1) Β.N.S. and 3(1)(r), 3(2)5 of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Police Station Usrahar, District Etawah.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution's story, in a nutshell, is that the deceased Manoj Kumar, husband of the informant, was murdered. The FIR was lodged by the wife of the deceased, Smt. Anjali @ Pooja. Later on, she herself was arrayed as an accused in the said case on the allegation that she, along with the present appellant Rahul, had committed murder. However, the accused Smt. Anjali @ Pooja was granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.5.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13916 of 2025 (Smt. Anjali @ Pooja vs. State of U.P.). The role of the appellant is at par with that of Smt. Anjali @ Pooja.

¶14

CRLA No. 5483 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that a cold-blooded murder was committed by the appellant and another coaccused, Smt. Anjali @ Pooja.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Let the appellant Rahul Pal involved in Bail Application No. 794 of 2025 (Rahul Pal Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 113 of 2024 under section 333, 351(3), 103(1) Β.N.S. and 3(1)(r), 3(2)5 of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Police Station Usrahar, District Etawah, 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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

CRLA No. 5483 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 9, 2025 Ujjawal

¶30

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶31

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

Rahul Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Pal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Radhakishun and Another vs State of U.P.and Another

Manoj vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Gajendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Naushad vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another