HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3266 of 2026 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 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Abhishek Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Kuldeep .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 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 2 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 3 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 4 (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 CRLA No. 3266 of 2026 5 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad