Allahabad High Court

RAJESH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV

Holding

The court held that the appellant is entitled to bail and set aside the bail rejection order.

Summary

The appellant, Rajesh Yadav, 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 9‑Feb‑2026 passed by the Special Judge, Jaunpur. He claimed innocence, alleged false implication, and pointed to the bail granted to a similarly situated co‑accused, Ankit Gupta, by a coordinate bench of the same court. The State opposed the bail but did not refute the appellant’s submissions. After examining the facts, the nature of the offence, the evidence and the parity argument, the court found that the appellant had made out a case for bail. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the bail rejection order was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the bail rejection order under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can be set aside.
Whether parity with a co‑accused who was granted bail warrants granting bail to the appellant.
Whether the nature of the offence and the evidence against the appellant justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 103(1)
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)V

Subjects

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

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2528 of 2026

Rajesh Yadav
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Lal Bahadur Yadav, Nishant Kumar
Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Prem Chand Saroj, Rajendra
Prasad Mishra

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

1. Supplementary affidavit, rejoinder affidavit as well as counter affidavit
have been filed today in the Court, the same are 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 - Rajesh Yadav to set aside the bail rejection order dated
9.2.2026 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Jaunpur in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.39 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime No.382
of 2025, under Section 103(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act,
P.S.- Khuthan, District- Jaunpur 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 26.11.2024.

5. It is further contended that similarly placed co-accused person, namely,
Ankit Gupta, has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 27.2.2026 in Criminal Appeal No.1624 of 2026,
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
CRLA No. 2528 of 2026
2

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 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- Rajesh Yadav, 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.)
March 19, 2026
Krishna*

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…