Rishi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2025CRLA/8176/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted in appeal under S. 14-A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; offences under ss. 115(2), 117(2), 351(2), 324(2) BNS and s. 3(2)5A SC/ST Act; Case Crime No. 43 of 2025, PS Dannahar, District Mainpuri; bail rejection by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Mainpuri set aside; tractor trolley hitting motorcycle; five injuries, one grievous (fracture left arm); no specific role assigned; personal bond and two sureties with conditions; Allahabad High Court; Anil Kumar-X, J.; decision date October 9, 2025; CRLA/Criminal Appeal No. 8176 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned bail-rejection order set aside; appellant Rishi directed to be released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to specified conditions, with sureties to be verified before the release order.

Rishi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant Rishi is entitled to bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2025, i.e., whether the trial court's bail-rejection order dated 19.8.2025 should be set aside.

¶¶12

Court's answer

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and severity of punishment, the appellants have made out a case for bail.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set aside.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

The appellant is to 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 conditions (no tampering with evidence, no pressurising prosecution witnesses, appearance on dates fixed, no similar offences, no inducement/threat/promise), with sureties verified before the release order.ratio¶¶21
On breach of any of the bail conditions, the concerned Court is at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for the accused's appearance or to cancel the bail granted.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Anil Kumar-X, J.) allowed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 filed by appellant Rishi against rejection of his bail application (Bail application no. 1457 of 2025, Rishi Vs. State of U.P.) by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Mainpuri on 19.8.2025, in Case Crime No. 43 of 2025 (sections 115(2), 117(2), 351(2), 324(2) BNS and section 3(2)5A SC/ST Act, Police Station Dannahar, District Mainpuri). Considering the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and severity of punishment — and counsel's submissions that the FIR named unknown persons, the injured Himanshu Yadav's own statement named no accused, witnesses Prashant and Mohit alleged the motorcycle was hit by the appellant's tractor trolley, the injured suffered five injuries of which only one (fracture of left arm) was grievous, and no specific role was assigned to any accused — the Court held the appellant had made out a case for bail, set aside the rejection order, and directed release on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions barring tampering with evidence, intimidation of prosecution witnesses, non-appearance, commission of similar offences and inducement/threat/promise to witnesses, with liberty to the trial court to take coercive action or cancel bail on breach.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8176 of 2025

Rishi

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

			.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Nisha Rathore	Chouhan,	Shailendra	Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 87

¶9

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for appellant and the learned AGA for State.

¶11

As per 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- Rishi with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order 19.8.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Mainpuri in Bail application no. 1457 of 2025 (Rishi Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 43 of 2025, under sections 115(2), 117(2), 351(2), 324 (2) Β.N.S. and section 3 (2)5A of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Dannahar, District Mainpuri.

¶13

Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that FIR was lodged against some unknown person by informant who stated therein that his son Himanshu was assaulted by co-accused Risabh Yadav and five or six unknown persons. When statement of injured Himanshu Yadav was recorded by Investigating Officer, he did not mentioned the names of accused persons and barely stated that he has been assaulted by unknown persons. Later on when statements of independent witnesses Prashant and Mohit were recorded by Investigating Officer they stated that motorcycle of injured was hit by tractor trolley of appellant and other accused person, which led to an altercation. They have also alleged that all the accused persons started assaulting the injured. It was further submitted that injured has received five injures and and only one of the injuries is grievous in nature. Injury no. 5 reflects that inured has suffered fracture on his left arm. It was submitted that no specific role has been assigned to any of accused

¶14

CRLA No. 8176 of 2025

¶15

¶16

person. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for bail.

¶17

Learned AGA for State has submitted that the injured was brutally assaulted by appellant and other accused and he has also suffered fracture in his left arm.

¶18

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

¶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, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail.

¶20

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

¶21

Let the appellant- Rishi involved in Case Crime No. 43 of 2025, under sections 115(2), 117(2), 351(2), 324 (2) Β.N.S. and section 3 (2)5A of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Dannahar, District Mainpuri , 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

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

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

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.

¶28

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶29

October 9, 2025/Mukesh

¶30

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

Rishi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishi 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