Kumari Swati v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2026CRLA/1860/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act; offence under Section 61(2) BNS and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act; Case Crime No. 251 of 2025; P.S. Pakbara, District Moradabad; woman accused not named in FIR; custody since 26.9.2025; bail granted on personal bond and two sureties; conditions including Section 313 Cr.P.C. appearance; Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.; Allahabad High Court; decision dated March 19, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned order dated 2.12.2025 rejecting bail set aside; appellant Kumari Swati to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (¶¶18-24) and liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation on breach. ¶¶16

Kumari Swati vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act should be allowed, the Special Judge's order dated 2.12.2025 rejecting the appellant's bail application set aside, and the appellant released on bail in Case Crime No. 251 of 2025.

¶¶8

Court's answer

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

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

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

¶¶16

Key takeaways

The appellant Kumari Swati 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 including cooperation with the prosecution, non-tampering with evidence, no intimidation of prosecution witnesses, and personal presence before the trial court on dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; sureties to be verified before release.ratio¶¶17
In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move a bail cancellation application before the competent Court.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.) allowed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 2.12.2025 of the Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Moradabad rejecting bail in Case Crime No. 251 of 2025 (Sections 61(2) BNS and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Pakbara, District Moradabad). The appellant, a woman not named in the FIR (name surfaced during investigation) and in custody since 26.9.2025, was held to have made out a case for bail having regard to the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and severity of punishment. She was directed to be released on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to standard conditions including presence for statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation on breach.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1860 of 2026

¶3

Kumari Swati

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Abhishek Srivastava	Mayank, Abhishek
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 50

¶6

HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the notice has been served upon the opposite party no. 2.

¶8

This Criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 2.12.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Moradabad in bail application no. 4330 of 2025 and to release him in Case Crime No. 251 of 2025, under Sections 61 (2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Pakbara, District Moradabad.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant-applicant is not named in the FIR and during the investigation her name came into light. The appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The appellant has not committed the alleged offence. The appellant has no concern with the alleged incident. False allegation has been made against the appellant. There is no cogent evidence against the appellant. There is allegation against the appellant under Section 61 (2) of B.N.S. and section 3 (2) V of SC/ST Act. It is very surprised that no other section of B.N.S. has been added against the appellant and on the basis of that it cannot said that the offence is made out against the appellant. At the time of the alleged incident the appellant was not present. There is no criminal history against the appellant. The appellant is a lady The appellant is in

¶10

CRLA No. 1860 of 2026

¶11

¶12

jail since 26.9.2025.

¶13

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶14

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Let the appellant Kumari Swati, involved in the 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.

¶18

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶24

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶25

CRLA No. 1860 of 2026

¶26

¶27

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶28

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

¶29

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶30

March 19, 2026

¶31

¶32

Digitally signed by :- AFAQ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kumari Swati v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Swati 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

Ritu Soni vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vipul and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashif vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit @ Sanju vs State of U.P. and Another

Zahid Ansari vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Goel vs State of U.P. and Another