Allahabad High Court

SURAJPALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 23 February 2026
Bench: SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV

Holding

The appeal is allowed and the order rejecting the appellant's bail application is set aside, granting bail with conditions.

Summary

The appellant Surajpal, who has been in custody since 23 February 2025, filed a bail appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, contending that he was falsely implicated and not named in the FIR, his name appearing only in a co‑accused's statement. He argued that a similarly situated co‑accused, Rohit, had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of the same court, establishing a case of parity. The State opposed the bail but did not refute the appellant's submissions. After considering the nature of the offences, the evidence, the appellant's role, and the principle of parity, the court held that the appellant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the earlier order denying bail was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail subject to standard conditions, including non‑tampering with evidence and appearance before the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act given the circumstances of his alleged involvement and the parity with a co‑accused who was granted bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25, 27, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 190(3), 238(a), 324(2)
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(v)

Subjects

bail
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
parity
false implication
criminal procedure
Indian Penal Code
Arms Act

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12013 of 2025

Surajpal
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Brijesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

1. Notice has been served upon informant/opposite party no.2 by learned A.G.A..

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- Surajpal to set
aside the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge
SC/ST Act, Rampur in Bail Application No. 168 of 2023 (Surajpal Vs. State of U.P.)
arising out of Case Crime No.43 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 190(3), 238(a),
324(2) BNS, Section 4/25/27 Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.-
Sahabad, District- Rampur with a further prayer to release the applicant 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 not named in the
impugned FIR. Name of the appellant came into light in the statement of co-accused
Lata, who has already been granted bail. The appellant is in jail since 23.02.2025.

5. It is further contended that similarly placed co-accused person, namely, Rohit has
already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
2.12.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.5626 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
CRLA No. 12013 of 2025
2

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 and the nature of injury, 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- Surajpal, 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.

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)
February 24, 2026
Krishna*

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…