IMTIYAZ ALI ALIAS SIPAHIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10059 of 2025

Imtiyaz Ali Alias Sipahi
                                                               .....Appellant(s)
                                       Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                             .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)           :    Praveen Kumar Pandey, Yash Talwar
Counsel for Respondent(s)          :    Sheshmani Vishwakarma, G.A.

Court No. - 50
               HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

1. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the
appellant to set aside the bail rejection order dated 03.10.2025 passed by
Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Deoria in Third Bail
Application No. 1883 of 2025 in Special Trial No.610 of 2023, arising out of
Case Crime No. 351 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 302/34, 323/34, 336,
427, 452, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)V SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Gauri Bazar,
District Deoria.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State-
respondent no.1, leaned counsel for the informant and perused the entire
record .

3. In short, the prosecution story is that on 02.09.2023 at about 8.00 pm in
the evening when the father of the informant was returning back from the
market, due to some dispute, the appellant Imtiyaz alongwith his wife
Shahjahan Khatoon and their children started abusing and assaulted him with
punches, kicks, bricks and sticks. It is further alleged that appellant has also
assaulted to the injured with knife.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not
committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Prosecution story is
totally false and fabricated. As per allegation, the appellant has sustained
injury to the deceased by knife whereas as per statement of doctor as well as
                                                                CRLA No. 10059 of 2025
                                     2


postmortem report, there is no injury of knife which itself is sufficient to
create doubt about the allegation made in the FIR. Further submission is that
there are 36 prosecution witnesses out of them only 2 witnesses have been
examined as yet meaning thereby there is no possibility of early conclusion
of trial in near future, hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Appellant is languishing in jail since 03.09.2023 having no previous criminal
history. Further submission is that the impugned order rejecting the bail
application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting
interference by this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the
informant vehemently opposed the the prayer for bail of the appellant and
has submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having
knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no
infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

6. 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.

7. 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 and the nature of injury, the Court is of the
opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below
erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order
suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and
the appeal is liable to be allowed.

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

9. Let the appellant-Imtiyaz Ali Alias Sipahi, 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.
                                                                                                    CRLA No. 10059 of 2025
                                                                        3

                                    (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.

                                    10. 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 18, 2026
                                    Ajeet
                                                                                           (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
AJEET KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad