Allahabad High Court

RAMBEER @ BABLUversusSTATE OF U.P. THOUGH IT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) AND ANOTHER

Decided: 8 April 2026
Bench: AJAY BHANOT

Holding

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court’s bail rejection, and granted bail to the appellant.

Summary

The appellant, Rambeer @ Bablu, appealed to the Allahabad High Court against the rejection of his bail application by a Special Judge under Section 14‑A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The FIR stemmed from a single incident that gave rise to three separate cases, two of which the appellant had already been granted bail by the same High Court. The appellant argued that he was not a flight risk, had cooperated with the investigation, and posed no danger of tampering with evidence or re‑offending. The High Court held that the trial court erred in denying bail, especially in view of the earlier bail orders and the appellant’s lack of any material risk. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the bail rejection order was set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail subject to standard conditions and reasonable sureties.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in the present case.
Whether the appellant’s prior bail in related cases influences the bail decision in the current case.
Whether the appellant poses a flight risk or a risk of tampering with evidence or re‑offending.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 295, 354, 395, 427, 436
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(v), 3(2)5

Subjects

bail
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
prevention of atrocities
flight risk
witness tampering
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9092 of 2025

Rambeer @ Bablu
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary
(Home) And Another .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : A.Z. Khan, Atul Kumar, Avinash
Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 46
HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Matter is taken up in the revised call.

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been
preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail
rejection order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Special
Judge SC/ST Act, in Case Crime No. 64 of 2017 at Police
Station-Bargaon, District-Saharanpur under Sections 147, 148,
149, 295, 395, 354, 436, 427 IPC and Section 3(2)5 and 3(1)(v)
of SC/ST Act. The applicant is in jail since 08.08.2025.

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the trial
court on 04.09.2025.

Sri A. Z. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
following grounds and the material aspects which were
neglected from consideration or not properly appreciated by the
learned trial court in accordance with law could not be
satisfactorily refuted by Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA from
the record and entitle the appellant to be enlarged on bail:
1.The F.I.R. arises out of one incident in which three separate
cases were registered.

2. The appellant has been enlarged on bail in two of the other
CRLA No. 9092 of 2025
2

cases by this Court by order dated 16.12.2022 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 3847 of 2022 and order dated 09.01.2023
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3719 of 2022.

3. The appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in the instant
case on the footing and the reasons disclosed in the aforesaid
orders passed by this Court.

4. The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law
abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and
undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility
of the applicant influencing witnesses, tampering with the
evidence or reoffending.

In the light of the preceding discussion, facts and circumstances
of the case and in view of the nature of the offence and evidence
the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial court erred in
rejecting the bail application. The impugned order is liable to be
set aside and is set aside.

The appeal is allowed.

Let the applicant -Rambeer @ Bablu 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest
of justice:-

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence
any witness during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date
fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due
application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this
Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.
Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).
The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the
CRLA No. 9092 of 2025
3

applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary
demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to
the socioeconomic status of the applicant.

It is further directed that in case the applicant or any accused
person who has been enlarged on bail does not cooperate in the
trial or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record
a finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to
this Court.

(Ajay Bhanot,J.)
April 9, 2026
Dhananjai

Digitally signed by :-
DHANANJAI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…