Neyaz Ali Alias Rahul vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Neyaz Ali Alias Rahul vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; bail rejection order set-aside. Appellant Neyaz Ali @ Rahul (Case Crime No. 155 of 2025, PS Jhangaha, Gorakhpur) 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, sureties to be verified before issuing the release order, subject to conditions: (i) no tampering with evidence during trial; (ii) no pressurizing/intimidating prosecution witnesses; (iii) appearance before trial court on dates fixed unless personal presence exempted; (iv) not committing similar offences; (v) no direct or indirect inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts to dissuade disclosure to Court/police; breach permits the court concerned to take coercive action or cancel the bail granted.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant Neyaz Ali @ Rahul, facing charges in Case Crime No. 155 of 2025 (Sections 137(2)/87 B.N.S.; Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act), police station Jhangaha, district Gorakhpur, is entitled to be released on bail, such that his criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the bail rejection order dated 3.7.2025 of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur should be allowed. +1 more

Court's answer

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the appellant's bail application is set-aside.

Ratio / Principle

The Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, evidence, severity of punishment and complicity of the accused.

Key takeaways

Bail is subject to enumerated conditions (no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; appearance before trial court on fixed dates unless presence exempted; no commission of similar offence; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure); on breach of any condition, the court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (single bench, Anil Kumar-X, J.) allowed Criminal Appeal No. 8269 of 2025 (decided October 13, 2025), filed by appellant Neyaz Ali @ Rahul under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the State of U.P., and set aside the bail rejection order dated 3.7.2025 of the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur passed in IInd Bail Application No. 2580 of 2025 concerning Case Crime No. 155 of 2025 under Sections 137 (2)/87 of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, police station Jhangaha, district Gorakhpur. Counsel for the appellant urged false implication and noted the victim had not supported the prosecution version; the A.G.A. opposed, stating the victim was found to be about 16 years of age at the time of recovery. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, severity of punishment and complicity of the accused, the Court held the appellant had made out a case for bail and ordered release on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to standard conditions, with liberty to the court concerned on any breach to take coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8269 of 2025

Neyaz Ali Alias Rahul

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Mohd. Shoeb Khan 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.

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.

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 - Neyaz Alia @ Rahul with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 3.7.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Gorakhpur in IInd Bail Application No. 2580 of 2025 (Neyaz Ali @ Rahul Versus State of U.P..), whereby the bail application of the appellant in Case Crime No. 155 of 2025 under Sections 137 (2)/87 of B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST Act, police station Jhangaha, district Gorakhpur has been rejected.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the allegations regarding enticing away the daughter of the informant have been made against him as false. However, the victim has not supported the prosecution version. Hence, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that at the time of recovery, the victim was found to be about 16 years of age; hence, the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.

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, severity of punishment, 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.

Let the appellant Neyaz Ali @ Rahul involved in Case Crime No. 155 of 2025, under Sections 137 (2)/87 of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, police station

CRLA No. 8269 of 2025

2

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

October 13, 2025

Sumaira

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

Digitally signed by :- SUMAIRA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad