Allahabad High Court

SHUBHAM YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 15 September 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

The appeal is allowed and bail is granted to the appellant with conditions, setting aside the order of the Special Judge.

Summary

The appellant, Shubham Yadav, was convicted under Sections 69, 89, 352, 351(3) of the IPC and several provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly forcing a pregnancy termination and using caste slurs. He appealed the denial of bail by the Special Judge under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act, claiming he was falsely implicated, the victim was a major, and he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and the risk of intimidation of the complainant. The High Court examined the charge‑sheet, found no evidence of tampering or threat to the victim, and held that bail could be granted with strict conditions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the lower court’s order was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail subject to the stipulated conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the appellant under Section 14‑A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act pending trial.
Whether the alleged conduct constitutes offences under the cited IPC and SC/ST Act provisions.
Whether there is a likelihood of the appellant tampering with evidence or intimidating the complainant if released on bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S.S. — s. 209, 269, 351, 84
Indian Penal Code — s. 351(3), 352, 69, 89
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)5, 3(2)(5Ka)

Subjects

bail
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
IPC offences
forced abortion
caste slur
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5646 of 2026

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

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rafeek Ahmad Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ankit Kumar Chaurasia, G.A.

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

1. Heard Shri Rafeeq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri
Ankit Kumar Chaurasia, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, Shri
Virendra Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the
appellant - Shubham Yadav with the prayer to set aside the order dated
07.05.2026 passed by the Additional Session Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST
Act), Mahoba in Bail Application No. 328 / 2026 (Shubham Yadav Vs. State
of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.30/2026, under Sections 69, 89, 352,
351(3) B.N.S. and Sections 3(2)5, 3(2)(5Ka), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) S.C./S.T.
Act, Police Station Khanna, District Mahoba with a further prayer to release
the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case during the pendency of trial.

3. The FIR in the matter was lodged on 09.04.2026 by the victim against the
appellant and Anoop, alleging therein that for the last two years, the
appellant had been in a relationship with her on the promise of marriage. He
established a forcible physical relationship with her, as a result of which she
became pregnant. Thereafter, when she pressurized him to marry her, he, on
a video call, asked her to consume medicines for abortion. He provided her
with the said medicines and, allegedly under his pressure, she consumed it
on the video call in his presence, resulting in termination of the pregnancy.
When she again insisted upon marriage, the appellant allegedly abused her
by using caste-related slurs, refused to marry her and threatened her.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been
falsely implicated in the present matter. It is submitted that, as per the
CRLA No. 5646 of 2026
2

certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, the victim is aged about 20
years and is a major. It is submitted that the relationship between the
appellant and the victim was consensual on some discussion of marriage
which could not be materialize. It is submitted that the chargesheet has been
submitted in the matter as stated in para-12 of the affidavit. Learned counsel
for the appellant makes a statement at bar that even today, the appellant is
ready to marry the victim/first informant provided she is also ready and
willing to marry him. It is submitted that the appellant has no criminal
history as stated in para-15 of the affidavit. The appellant is in jail since
11.04.2026.

5. Per contra, learned counsels for the State and the first informant opposed
the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the first informant/victim also
submits that the victim is still willing to marry the appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the State has filed a counter affidavit, which is taken
on record. A rejoinder affidavit thereto has also been filed on behalf of the
appellant.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is evident that the appellant and the victim were in a relationship.
During the subsistence of the said relationship, the victim became pregnant
and thereafter consumed some medicines, resulting in termination of the
pregnancy. There was also a discussion regarding marriage between the
appellant and the victim, which could not be materialized. The investigation
has since been concluded and the charge-sheet has been submitted before the
competent court.

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- Shubham Yadav, 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.
CRLA No. 5646 of 2026
3

(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.

(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 dated 07.05.2026 passed by learned Special Judge
SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Mahoba of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

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

September 16, 2026
Mukesh Kr.
(Samit Gopal,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…