Allahabad High Court
SHIV MANGALversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
Shiv Mangal, a 72‑year‑old retired teacher, was arrested in a case involving alleged misappropriation of an excess pension amount of Rs.5,37,408 and charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the IT Act. He contended that the excess amount was inadvertently credited and promptly returned, and that he was falsely implicated. The State opposed bail but could not refute his submissions, and the court noted that co‑accused had already been granted bail, the applicant had no criminal record, and had been in custody for over two months with no prospect of a speedy trial. The court found no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court ordered his release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions against tampering with evidence, pressurising witnesses, and non‑appearance.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused given the nature of the offences and the circumstances of the case
- Whether there is a risk of the accused tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses
- Whether the applicant's age, health, lack of criminal antecedents, and return of the excess pension amount justify bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 238, 316(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2)
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(D)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- pension fraud
- Indian Penal Code
- Information Technology Act
- senior citizen
- criminal antecedents
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10411 of 2026
Shiv Mangal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar, Shyam Sunder Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Babu, learned Brief
Holder 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. 657 of 2025, under Sections 319(2),
318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 316(5), 61(2), 238 B.N.S., and Section 66(D)
I.T. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Karvi, District- Chitrakoot during pendency
of the trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The applicant is aged about 72 years and
retired as an Assistant Teacher from Junior High School Lodhiya Chitrakoot.
He is receiving regular pension. An excess amount of Rs.5,37,408/- was
inadvertently credited to the pension account of the applicant and, the said
amount has been duly returned by him. In this regard, reliance has been
placed upon a certificate dated 4.4.2026 issued by Senior Treasury Officer,
Chitrakoot. It is contended that the applicant has neither forged nor
fabricated any documents. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence
to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Balwant
Singh, Mahipal and Natthu Ram have been granted bail by this Court vide
orders dated 13.1.2026, 24.2.2026 and 24.3.2026 passed in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application Nos. 44157 of 2025, 42759 of 2025 and 9868 of 2026
respectively. The applicant is in jail since 24.2.2026 having no criminal
history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
BAIL No. 10411 of 2026
2
4. Learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could
not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the excess amount credited to the pension
account of the applicant has duly been returned. Identically placed co-
accused Balwant Singh, Mahipal and Natthu Ram have been granted bail by
this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant
has presently remained confined for more than two months and there is no
hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension
has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on
bail, would either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness,
without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant, Shiv Mangal involved in the aforesaid case be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions
that:
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
May 6, 2026
S.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…