Allahabad High Court
PRASHANT MISHRA @ MANGALversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as there is no prima facie case against him and criminal history alone is not a ground to refuse bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Prashant Mishra @ Mangal, who was arrested under Sections 309(4) and 317(2) of the IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, that there was a delay between the alleged incident and the FIR, and that no independent witness or identification parade linked him to the alleged recovery of a pistol, cash and mobile phones. The State opposed bail on the ground of the applicant’s criminal antecedents. The Court found that, prima facie, there was no corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offence and that criminal history alone does not justify denial of bail. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties and conditions to appear before the trial court and not tamper with evidence or witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR and lacks corroborative evidence.
- Whether the accused’s criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the manner of alleged recovery affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 3/25
- Indian Penal Code — s. 309(4), 317(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedents
- FIR
- identification parade
- Arms Act
- IPC
- delay
- prima facie evidence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10143 of 2026
Prashant Mishra @ Mangal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2026, under Sections 309(4),
317(2) B.N.S., and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Nawabganj,
District- Kanpur Nagar during pendency of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the
first information. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 7.1.2026,
whereas the first information report was lodged on 8.1.2026. The delay is
fatal to the prosecution case. On the basis of an information furnished by an
informer, the applicant was arrested on 9.1.2026 and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. False recovery of a country made pistol,
Indian currency of Rs.1500/- and two mobile phones has been shown from
the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The
said Indian currency and mobile phone do not link the applicant with the
alleged offence. No test identification parade was got conducted by the
police authorities. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. The criminal history of the applicant has been
explained in para 4 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail
since 10.1.2026. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the
applicant has criminal antecedents.
BAIL No. 10143 of 2026
2
5. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court prima facie finds that the
applicant was not named in the first information. There is no independent
witness to the alleged recovery. No test identification parade was got
conducted by the police authorities. At this stage, there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence.
6. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the
case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely
influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or
during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in
past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court if the
accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail
only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the
basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused,
hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on
the ground that he had criminal antecedent.
7. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex
Court in para 30 has observed:-
"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we
may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But,
it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in
respect of which he has been booked."
8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020
(11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of
several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for
refusal of bail.
9. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months,
there is no hope of early conclusion of trial and without commenting on the
merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
10. Let the applicant- Prashant Mishra @ Mangal, involved in the aforesaid
case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy
sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
BAIL No. 10143 of 2026
3
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
(iv) shall appear on 1st Sunday of every month at the Police Station
concerned.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
.
May 6, 2026
S.S.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…