Allahabad High Court

SHUBHAM YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 September 2026
Bench: SAMIT GOPAL

Holding

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

Summary

The appellant, Shubham Yadav, was charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly threatening a 19‑year‑old woman with a false promise of marriage and attempting to coerce her. The FIR was lodged on 12 March 2026, but the appellant contended that the relationship was consensual, the complaint was filed after an inordinate delay, and he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, while the appellant sought release pending trial. The High Court examined the facts, found no evidence of tampering or risk to the victim, and concluded that bail could be granted with stringent conditions. Consequently, the Court set aside the Special Judge’s order dated 2 May 2026, allowed the appeal, and ordered the appellant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties, and compliance with several conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the appellant under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act pending trial.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR defeats the prosecution’s case.
Whether there is a likelihood of tampering with evidence or intimidation of the complainant.

Legislation cited

B.N.S., 2023 — s. 209, 269, 351, 84
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A(2), 3(2)(5), 69

Subjects

bail
SC/ST Act
false promise to marry
consensual relationship
delay in FIR
criminal appeal

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5673 of 2026

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

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Prabha Upadhyay, Raghvendra Pratap
Rajan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri Raghvendra Pratap Rajan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. Counter affidavit dated 06.08.2025 of the State is on record. Perusal of
paragraph 3 of the same goes to show that notice has been served on the first
informant / opposite party no.2 by the S.H.O. concerned on 03.08.2026,
proof of receipt of notice is annexed as Annexure No. CA-1 to the
same. Despite service of notice neither the opposite party no.2 is present
before the Court nor there is any representation on her behalf.

4. Rejoinder affidavit dated 23.08.2026 on behalf of the appellant to the
counter affidavit of the State is also on record. 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- Shubham Yadav, with the prayer to set aside the order dated
02.05.2026 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Ghazipur in
Case Crime No. 34 of 2026, under Sections 69 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(5)
S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Karanda, District Ghazipur, with a further
prayer to release the appellant on bail, during the pendency of trial.

6. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on
12.03.2026 by the victim against the appellant alleging therein that on a false
CRLA No. 5673 of 2026
2

promise to marry since the last three years the appellant has been
establishing illegal physical relationship with her. On 11.03.2026 at about 9
am he called her on phone and told her to meet him in the night or else he
would make her photographs viral. She got terrified and then called him at
about 11:16 pm to her house where he reached and they were caught by the
neighbours. He then showed that he has married her but later on refused
marriage with her.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the relationship
between the appellant and the victim was a consensual relationship. It is
submitted that the victim was aged about 19 years & 02 months on the date
of occurrence as her date of birth recorded in her High School mark-sheet is
01.01.2007. It is submitted that the relationship between the appellant and
the victim was on some discussion of marriage between them which could
not materialize. It is submitted that the first information report has been
lodged after an inordinate delay of three years. The appellant has no criminal
history as stated in para 25 of the affidavit and is in jail since 17.03.2026.

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

9. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record,
it is evident that appellant and the victim were in relationship since last three
years and there was some discussion of marriage between them which could
not materialize hence the present first information report has been lodged.

10. 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.

11. 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.

(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.
CRLA No. 5673 of 2026
3

(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.

12. 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.

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

14. The impugned order dated order dated 02.05.2026 passed by the Special
Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Ghazipur of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

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

September 18, 2026
AS Rathore
(Samit Gopal,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…