Sarvesh Bhar vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sarvesh Bhar vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed and the Special Judge's bail-rejection order of 27.05.2025 set aside; appellant Sarvesh Bhar to be released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, sureties to be verified before the release order, subject to conditions: (i) no tampering with evidence during trial; (ii) no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; (iii) appearance before the trial court on dates fixed unless personal presence exempted; (iv) no commission of a similar offence; (v) no direct or indirect inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts so as to dissuade disclosure or tamper with evidence; on breach, the court concerned may take coercive action for appearance or cancel the bail; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether appellant Sarvesh Bhar's appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 should succeed in setting aside the Special Judge's order dated 27.05.2025 rejecting bail and securing his release on bail in Case Crime No. 538 of 2023.

Court's answer

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence and complicity of the accused, 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; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Key takeaways

The appellant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions set out in the judgment, with the sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Anil Kumar-X, J.), decision dated October 30, 2025, allowed Criminal Appeal No. 5950 of 2025, brought under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by Sarvesh Bhar, and set aside the order dated 27.05.2025 of the Special Judge, Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act), Mahrajganj rejecting his bail application in Case Crime No. 538 of 2023 (Sections 376, 354-C, 506 IPC; Section 3(2)5 SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015); Section 67A Information Technology Act; Police Station Kotwali, District Mahrajganj). Considering the facts, nature of the offence, evidence and complicity of the accused, the Court held the appellant had made out a case for bail. Bail was granted on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, with surety verification required before the release order, subject to five conditions: no tampering with evidence; no pressurising or intimidating of prosecution witnesses; appearance before the trial court on dates fixed unless presence exempted; no commission of a similar offence; and no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts or tamper with evidence. On breach of any condition, the court concerned may take coercive action for the accused's appearance or cancel the bail. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of. Defence contentions recorded (not adjudicated individually): the F.I.R. allegedly lacked date/time of the incident, was lodged with a delay of about two months from the 22.07.2023 date of abuse/threatening mentioned therein, and no video or photographs were reportedly recovered from the appellant.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5950 of 2025

Sarvesh Bhar

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Deepak Kumar Tripathi .....Respondent(s)
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.

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 a prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 27.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, Exclusive Special Court (SC/ST Act), Mahrajganj and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 538 of 2023, Under Section- 376, 354-C, 506 IPC & Section 3(2)5 SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) and Section 67A Information Technology Act, Police Station- Kotwali, DistrictMahrajganj.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that false and concocted story has been narrated by the victim in the F.I.R. The victim has not mentioned the date and time of the alleged incident. Perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that on 22.07.2023, victim and her husband was abused and threatened by the appellant. Even the said date is considered, then also the F.I.R. is lodged with the delay of two months. Victim has alleged that she along with her husband was living in the house of the appellant and when the husband of the appellant remain absent during the working hours, she was blackmailed by the appellant who had shot some obscene videos of the victim. However, no recovery of any video or photographs were made from the appellant. Appellant is innocent. It was submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

CRLA No. 5950 of 2025

2

In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to bail.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid submissions made by learned cousnel for the appellant.

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, 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. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Let the appellant- Sarvesh Bhar , involved in the aforesaid case 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

CRLA No. 5950 of 2025

3

shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

October 30, 2025

Nisha

Digitally signed by :- nisha kumari High Court of Judicature at Allahabad