CRLA/2528/2026 of RAJESH YADAV Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2528 of 2026 Court No. - 50 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit, rejoinder affidavit as well as counter affidavit have been filed today in the Court, the same are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. 3. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant - Rajesh Yadav to set aside the bail rejection order dated 9.2.2026 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Jaunpur in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.39 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime No.382 of 2025, under Section 103(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Khuthan, District- Jaunpur with a further prayer to enlarge the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The appellant is in jail since 26.11.2024. 5. It is further contended that similarly placed co-accused person, namely, Ankit Gupta, has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.2.2026 in Criminal Appeal No.1624 of 2026, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. 6. I have perused the bail order of the co-accused and find that the role Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Lal Bahadur Yadav, Nishant Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Prem Chand Saroj, Rajendra Prasad Mishra Rajesh Yadav .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) assigned to the present appellant is almost similar to that of co-accused person, who has already been granted bail by this Court. 7. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the application for bail but could not dispute the submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant. 8. 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, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside. 10. Let the appellant- Rajesh Yadav , 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. (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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. March 19, 2026 Krishna* CRLA No. 2528 of 2026 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)