ANASversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11294 of 2025

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)         : Anand Ji Mishra, Kaushal Kumar Pandey
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 23.09.2025 passed by
Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Meerut in Bail Application No.5297 of 2025
arising out of Case Crime No.266 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3),
109(1), 352, 115(2) BNS and 3(1)(gha), 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 informant and perused the entire
record.

3. In short, according to the prosecution case, on 22.08.2025 at about 07.15
pm, the accused Anas (appellant) alongwith co-accused Saalim, Ikramau and
Farooq and some unknown persons with the intention to kill have assaulted
the injured Adesh, Shivanshu, Anuj, Mohit, Gaurav as a result of which they
have sustained serious injuries. It is further alleged that the accused persons
have also abused to the informant as well as injured by caste related words.

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. The impugned FIR has been lodged against four
accused persons including the appellant and against them only general role
assigned. No specific role assigned to the appellant. Further submission is
that that as to who was the author of the alleged incident, is not clear. As per
                                                                CRLA No. 11294 of 2025
                                     2


version of the FIR as well as statement of the injured, the accused persons
have assaulted with sharp edge weapon but as per injury report, there is no
injury of sharp edge weapon. Further submission is that there are 18
prosecution witnesses and till now no witness has been examined 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 23.08.2025. 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. vehemently opposed the the prayer for
bail of the appellant.

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-Anas, 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.
                                                                                                   CRLA No. 11294 of 2025
                                                                        3

                                    (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