KULDEEPversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                          CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3266 of 2026

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)                                            :        Abhishek Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)                                           :        G.A.

Court No. - 76
                               HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Sandeep Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Abhishek Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned
counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. On 17.07.2026 the following order was passed by this Court:-

"1. List revised.


2. Heard Sri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned
counsel for the State and perused the record.


3. Office vide its report dated 25.5.2026 has reported that compliance report regarding service of notice
to the opposite party no. 2 is still awaited. Office to send reminder for compliance of previous order
forthwith.


5. Compliance affidavit dated 15.6.2026 has been filed by the learned A.G.A. today in Court which is
taken on record. It is submitted that as per para-3 of the same, notice has been served personally upon the
opposite party no.2. This Court has perused the same.


6. Although as per office report regarding service of notice is awaited from the C.J.M. concerned, but
since compliance affidavit of the State states of service of notice upon the opposite party no. 2 on
14.6.2026. The same is sufficient. Despite service of notice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party
no.2 even in the revised list. Thus the Court proceeds to hear the matter.


7. Learned counsel for appellant prays for and is granted three weeks time to file supplementary affidavit.


8. List on 07.8.2026. "


4. Subsequently per the office report dated 06.08.2026 a report regarding
                                                          CRLA No. 3266 of 2026
                                2


service of notice has been received which is flagged as flag 'A'. The report
dated 04.08.2026 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur along with the
report of the Police Station Shahganj, District Jaunpur dated 02.08.2026 with
the signature of the opposite party no.2 enclosed with it is on record which
states that notice has been served on the opposite party no.2. Thus the notice
has sufficiently been served on the first informant / opposite party no.2.
Despite service of notice neither the opposite party no.2 is present before the
Court nor there is any representation on his behalf even in the revised call.
The Court proceeds to hear the matter.

5. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the
appellant- Kuldeep, with the prayer to set aside the order dated 23.02.2026
passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur in Case Crime No. 401 of
2025, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352, 117(2), 131, 109(1), 351(3),
309(6), 61(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station
Shahganj, District Jaunpur, with a further prayer to release the appellant on
bail in the aforesaid case during the pendency of trial.

6. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on
26.11.2025 by Subedar against the Ruby Bind, husband of Ruby Bind and
02 unknown persons alleging therein that on 23.11.2025 at about 7 pm his
son who works in the fodder cutting machine was called by Ruby Bind who
is a private doctor to her house for giving the remaining amount of money
due on him as his son had even previously worked for her. When his son
Neeraj reached the culvert of Husainabad then three unknown persons in
which the husband of Ruby Bind was also present armed with sharp-edged
weapons like kulhadi and rod attacked him due to which he received injuries
on his head. They also hurled caste related abuses on him. His son became
unconscious and then the assailants considering him to be dead left him and
ran away. A report be lodged and action be taken. Due to the injuries his son
has been referred to Sharagasi and is under treatment.

7. The injured Neeraj Kumar was medically examined on 26.11.2025 by the
Medical Officer, Government Men's Hospital, Shahganj, District Jaunpur
and was found to have received two stitched wounds, a contused swelling
and two complaints of pain. All the injuries were opined to be simple in
nature caused by hard & blunt object of duration 2-3 days old. The patient
was kept under observation and referred to the District Hospital, Jaunpur for
                                                                       CRLA No. 3266 of 2026
                                        3


expert opinion & management of injury nos. 1, 2 & 4.

8. The C.E.C.T of Thorax of the injured was conducted in which the doctor
gave the following impression:-

"Minimal Bilateral Pleural Effusion And Subsegmental Atelectasis Posteriorbasal Segment Bilateral
Lower Lobes."


9. The C.T. Scan of the face wad found to be normal. Subsequently the
N.C.C.T. of head was conducted on 26.11.2025 in which the conclusion as
drawn was under:-

"Fracture Right Temporal And Parietal Bones and Hemorrgagic Cortical Contusions With Edema Right
Termporal And Pareital Bones."


10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the appellant is not
named in the first information report. It is further submitted that the
statement of the injured Neeraj Kumar was recorded during investigation
three times in which in the first two statements he has not named the
appellant but subsequently in the third statement he names the appellant as
one of the assailants. It is submitted that the same is an afterthought in order
to falsely implicate the appellant as a result of tutoring. It is further
submitted that Mukesh Kumar is alleged to be accompanying the injured
Neeraj Kumar on a motorcycle as per the statement of the injured but even
Mukesh Kumar during interrogation has not named the appellant. While
placing Annexure-1 of the 2nd supplementary affidavit dated 04.08.2026 it
is submitted that a supplementary charge-sheet dated 27.02.2026 has been
filed against the appellant. While placing paragraph Annexure-3 of the said
supplementary affidavit it is submitted that co-accused Ram Murat Bind the
husband of Ruby Bind has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court
vide order dated 26.03.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 711 of 2026
(Ram Murat Bind Vs. State of U.P. and Another). It is submitted that
the first information report has been lodged after an unexplained delay of 03
days. The appellant has no criminal history as stated in para 26 of the
affidavit and is in jail since 09.02.2026.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

12. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is evident that the appellant is not named in the first information
                                                            CRLA No. 3266 of 2026
                                  4


report. His name has surfaced in the matter for the first time in the third
statement of the injured recorded during interrogation. The investigation in
the matter has concluded and charge-sheet has been submitted. Co-accused
Ram Murat Bind has been granted bail.

13. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of
evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the
appellant may be enlarged on bail.

14. Let the appellant- Kuldeep, be released on bail in the aforesaid case
crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The appellant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not
harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) The appellant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on
every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the
trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance
with law.

(iv) The appellant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner
whatsoever. In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and
in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023
may be issued and if appellant fails to appear before the court on the date
fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings
against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023.

(v) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3)
recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of
the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial
court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023.
                                                                                               CRLA No. 3266 of 2026
                                                                     5


                                    (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to
                                    conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the appellant.

                                    15. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by
                                    court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned
                                    above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the
                                    appellant to prison.

                                    16. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.

                                    17. The impugned order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the Special Judge
                                    (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

                                    18. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

                                    October 1, 2026
                                    AS Rathore
                                                                                                    (Samit Gopal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad