NANHE KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                     CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10061 of 2025

Nanhe Khan
                                                                        .....Appellant(s)
                                          Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)              :   Shubham Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)             :   Dushyant Kumar, G.A., Rahul Singh Tomar

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 08.10.2025 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act,
Meerut in Bail Application No.6371 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.266 of
2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 352, 115(2) BNS and Section 3(1)(da),
3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut.

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

3. 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. Further submission is that the prosecution story is
totally false and fabricated. Only general role assigned against all accused persons. No
specific role assigned to the appellant. urther submission is that trial has not been
started as yet and there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial, hence, the
appellant may be enlarged on bail. Further submission is that similarly placed co-
accused, Saalim, Ikramu, Farooq and Anas have already been granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 18.03.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.10208 and 11294
of 2025, copy of bail order has been placed on record. Further submission is that since
the similarly placed co-accused has already been granted bail, the accused appellant is
also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Appellant is languishing in jail since
24.08.2025 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.

4. 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 but could not dispute the
aforesaid fact.
                                                                                                    CRLA No. 10061 of 2025
                                                                         2

                                    5. I have perused the bail order of co-accused and find that the role assigned to the
                                    present appellant is almost similar to that of co-accused, who have already been
                                    enlarged on bail by this Court.

                                    6. 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, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made
                                    out a case for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 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.

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

                                    8. Let the appellant-Nanhe Khan, 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.

                                    9. 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
                                    Ajeet
                                                                                               (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)




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