Allahabad High Court

DEVENDRA SINGH VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The High Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant, setting aside the trial court's order denying bail.

Summary

The appellant, Devendra Singh Verma, appealed to the Allahabad High Court under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seeking to set aside a Special Judge's order denying bail in a case involving alleged caste‑related abuse, cheating, and forgery. The FIR alleged that the appellant had taken ornaments from a former clerk without paying rent and later assaulted the complainant using caste‑related slurs. The appellant argued that the FIR was filed maliciously, that there was no actual injury, and that he had no prior criminal record, while the State contended that the allegations warranted denial of bail. The Court examined the nature of the evidence, the absence of any indication of tampering, and the fact that the co‑accused had been exonerated, concluding that bail could be granted. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Special Judge's order, granted bail with strict conditions, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act involving alleged caste‑related abuse.
Whether the FIR was filed with malafide intent and constitutes a case of no injury.
Whether the risk of evidence tampering or victim harassment justifies denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 209, 251, 269, 313, 84
Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 115(2), 14A(2), 316(2), 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)(5)Ka, 351(2), 352

Subjects

bail
SC/ST Act
caste based atrocity
criminal procedure
no injury
appeal

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3554 of 2026

Devendra Singh Verma
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Kuldeep Singh Chahar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Gaurav Srivastav

Court No. - 75
HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Veer Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Kuldeep Singh
Chahar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Gaurav Srivastava, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2/first informant and Sri Birendra Pratap
Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant- Devendra Singh
Verma with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 18.3.2026
passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra, in Bail Application No. 1232
of 2023 (Devendra Singh Verma Vs. State of U.P.) S.C. No.852 of 2025,
Case Crime No. 204 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 316(2)
BNS and Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)(5)Ka of SC/ST Act, Police
Station Dauki, District Agra, and with a further prayer to release the
appellant on bail in the aforesaid case.

4. The FIR of the matter was lodged on 28.12.2024 by the opposite party
no. 2/Rahul against the appellant and Anup alleging therein that he was
working in the shop of the appellant as a clerk previously. On 23.4.2023
Devendra took some ornaments from him stating that he would be paid
rent on it but he did not give any rent. He asked for rent many times but
he states to give it after some times. He continuously asked for rent on
which assurance was given but it was not given to him. Devendra has
committed cheating and forgery with him. On 19.11.2024 in the morning
Devendra and his clerk Anup met him near Vazidpur crossing where he
inquired about rent and asked for return of his ornaments from Devendra,
on which they got agitated and used caste related words and abused him
and stated that they would not return anything. He may do anything else.
They abused him and assaulted and threatened him. A report be lodged
and action be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been
CRLA No. 3554 of 2026
2

falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted while placing para-
11 that the present case is a case of no injury. It is further submitted that
the present F.I.R. has been lodged with malafide intentions as the
appellant is owner of M/s Bhaskar Traders Vazidpur, Fatehabad and
Rajeet the brother of the informant borrowed some articles from his shop
for which a cheque was given to him which was dishonored and then a
case under Section 138 N.I. Act has been instituted in which he was
summoned vide order dated 2.3.2024 and further he was directed to
deposit 10% of the cheque amount vide order dated 6.10.2025, para-15 of
the affidavit in support of bail application has been placed before the
Court for the same. It is submitted that the present matter draws
punishment within 07 years and the appellant was initially granted interim
bail vide order dated 07.03.2026 by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act),
Agra but subsequently his bail application was rejected, copy of the said
order has been placed before the Court which is annexure no. 7 to the
affidavit in support of the bail application. It is submitted that
investigation in the matter has concluded and a charge sheet has been
submitted against the appellant and the co-accused Anup has been
exonerated. The appellant has no criminal history as stated in para 30 of
the affidavit in support of bail in appeal and is in jail since 18.3.2026.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and State
opposed the appeal and prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant is
named in the F.I.R. and charge sheet has been submitted against him and
there are allegations of use of caste related words.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that the appellant and the first informant/opposite
party no. 2 had relationship between them since the first informant was
previously working as a clerk in the shop of the appellant. The matter has
punishment up to 07 years. The appellant was previously granted interim
bail by the trial court concerned but subsequently his bail application was
rejected. The present case is a case of no injury. Investigation in the
matter has concluded and charge sheet has been submitted against the
appellant. The co-accused Anup has been exonerated during
investigation.

8. 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.

9. Let the appellant- Devendra Singh Verma 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:-
CRLA No. 3554 of 2026
3

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
BNSS/82 Cr.P.C., 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 BNS/174-A I.P.C.

(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 251 BNSS/313 Cr.P.C. 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
BNS/229-A IPC.

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

10. 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.

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

12. The impugned order 18.3.2026 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act),
Agra in the said case is hereby set aside.

(Samit Gopal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Naresh

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…