Akhilesh Yadav @ Akhilesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

As per Annexure - CA1 of the counter affidavit filed by the State, notice has been served upon respondent No.2. The original receipt of notice provided today is also taken on record. However, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2

¶14

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with a prayer to set aside order dated 21.01.2026 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Pratapgarh on Bail Application arising out of Case Crime No.4780 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 117(2), 351(3), 352, 109(1) B.N.S. & Sections 3(1) Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)v & 3(2)va of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District - Pratapgarh refusing bail to appellant. Further, a prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant on bail in the said case crime.

¶15

As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 22.10.2025 at about 11.30 A.M. when applicant along with co-accused are said to have attacked and assaulted the

¶16

CRLA No. 848 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

informant and his family members due to ongoing dispute over Aabadi property leading to grievous injuries. Allegation also levelled is that caste-based insults were also hurled upon informant and his family members.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him and that there is civil litigation already ongoing between the parties in civil court in which interim order of status quo has already been passed. It is submitted that in fact both the sides have suffered serious injuries including lacerated wounds and therefore the genesis of dispute would require to be ascertained. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 to submit that only general allegations have been levelled with regard to alleged caste-based insults without any specific humiliating term having been indicated. It is further submitted that since the incident is said to have occurred within the house, the same does not come within purview of public view and therefore the aspects of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, would not be applicable. It is also submitted that applicant's previous criminal history of three cases has been explained and he is under incarceration since 23.10.2025. The co-accused Adarsh Yadav having the same role has already been granted relief by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2026.

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the bail with submission that caste-based insults were in fact made outside the house and it is only subsequently the parties entered the house of informant and assaulted him and his family members leading to grievous injuries. It is submitted that earlier as well F.I.R. was lodged indicating appellant as one of the accused in similar circumstances. However, he admits that previous criminal history of three cases has been explained.

¶21

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that F.I.R. contains only general allegations with regard to caste-based humiliating terms having been used against informant and his family

¶22

CRLA No. 848 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

members. It also appears that a part of the incident is said to have taken place within house and therefore the aspect of public view would also require ascertainment. The record also reveals lacerated wounds having been inflicted upon both sides which were simple in nature and therefore the genesis of dispute would also require to be ascertained. It is admitted between the parties that civil proceedings are ongoing with interim injunction also having been granted which has earlier as well led to such an incident. Previous criminal history of appellant has been explained.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting on merits, I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 21.01.2026 is set aside.

¶26

Let appellant/applicant Akhilesh Yadav @ Akhilesh Kumar Yadav involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶27

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶28

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

¶29

(iii) The applicant 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 otherwise tamper with the evidence.

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶31

CRLA No. 848 of 2026

¶32

4

¶33

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

¶34

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (bow Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

¶35

The pending application if any too stands disposed of.

¶36

May 7, 2026 lakshman

¶37

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶38

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akhilesh Yadav @ Akhilesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Yadav @ Akhilesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sandeep Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sujeet Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajnish vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Anees Alias Anees Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Himanshu Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Yogendra Yadav @ Yogendra Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Justice U.P. Lucknow and 4 Others