Allahabad High Court

ROBINversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV

Holding

The appeal is allowed and the order rejecting the appellant’s bail application is set aside.

Summary

The appellant Robin appealed to the Allahabad High Court under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, seeking to set aside a bail rejection order dated 22‑01‑2026. He claimed innocence and argued that a co‑accused, Rahul Chaudhary, had been granted bail in a similar case, invoking parity. The court examined the nature of the offences, the evidence, and the appellant’s role, finding that the bail rejection was not justified. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the bail rejection order was set aside, and Robin was released on bail subject to standard conditions. The order also empowered the prosecution to seek bail cancellation if any condition is breached.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to bail despite the earlier rejection under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Whether parity with a similarly situated co‑accused who was granted bail warrants granting bail to the appellant.
Whether the nature of the offences and the evidence against the appellant justify the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 3/25
Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 125, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(3), 352, 61(2)
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)5

Subjects

bail
SC/ST Act
parity
criminal appeal
scheduled castes
scheduled tribes
bail conditions
false implication

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1076 of 2026

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

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Sakshi Srivastava

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

1. Supplementary affidavit has been filed today in the Court, the same is 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 - Robin to set
aside the bail rejection order dated 22.1.2026 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.)
Act, Bulandshahr in Bail Application No.447 of 2025 (Robin Vs. State of U.P.)
arising out of Case Crime No.662 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2),
351(3), 352, 109(1), 125, 61(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST (P.A.) Act and
Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.- Khurja Nagar, District- Bulandshahr 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 22.1.2026.

5. It is further contended that similarly placed co-accused person, namely, Rahul
Chaudhary, has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 9.12.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.9725 of 2025, 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 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
CRLA No. 1076 of 2026
2

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- Robin, 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*/Ajeet
(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…