Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the bail rejection order dated 22.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bareilly in Second Bail Application No.3451 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.261 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Kyoladia, District Bareilly.

¶11

This is second bail application on behalf of appellant. The first bail application was rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.05.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.5301 of 2023, copy of bail rejection order has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the Staterespondent no.1, Mr. Akash Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record.

¶13

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Further submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. There is no direct

¶14

CRLA No. 7774 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

or indirect evidence against the appellant. No witness has been examined as yet and there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial, hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail. Further submission is that similarly placed co-accused, Akash Sharma and X Minor (juvenile) s/o Pramesh Srivastava, have already been granted bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 20.06.2025 and 08.07.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2063 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No.2021 of 2025, copy of bail orders has been annexed as Annexure No.11 to this affidavit. Further submission is that since the similarly placed co-accused has already been granted bail, the accused appellant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Appellant is languishing in jail since 02.11.2022 having previous criminal history of one case in which he is on bail. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶17

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the the prayer for bail of the appellant.

¶18

I have perused the bail order of co-accused and find that the role assigned to the present appellant is almost similar to that of co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

¶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, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. 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 hereby set-aside .

¶21

Let the appellant- Mahendra, involved in 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 not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶23

CRLA No. 7774 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(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.

¶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

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

¶30

September 24, 2025 Ajeet

¶31

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra 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