Allahabad High Court

MANVENDRA @ MONUversusSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME GOV. OF U.P. AT LUCKNOW

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution lacks corroborative evidence and criminal history alone does not preclude bail.

Summary

Manvendra (Monu) applied for bail in a case under Sections 317(2), 317(5) of the IPC and the Arms Act, alleging that the recovery of a pistol, cartridges and ornaments was false and that there is no independent witness or corroborative evidence beyond his confession. The State opposed bail on the ground of his criminal antecedents. The High Court observed that the lack of independent evidence and the fact that criminal history alone does not justify denial of bail, citing Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh and Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. The court noted the applicant had been in custody for over three months with no prospect of a speedy trial. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties and conditions to appear before the trial court, not tamper with evidence, not pressurize witnesses, and report monthly to the police station.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted when the only evidence is the accused's confession and no independent or corroborative evidence exists.
Whether the accused's criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.
Whether the nature of the offences under the Arms Act and IPC Section 317 affect the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 3/25
Indian Penal Code — s. 317(2), 317(5)

Subjects

bail
confession
lack of corroborative evidence
criminal antecedents
Arms Act
Section 317 IPC
false implication
trial pendency

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12181 of 2026

Manvendra @ Monu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home Gov. Of
U.P. At Lucknow
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dwijendra Prasad, Pramod Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P. Tripathi, 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. 03 of 2026, under Sections 317(2),
317(5) B.N.S., and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Rajawali, District-
Firozabad during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. False recovery of country made pistol, two
live cartridges and ornaments of yellow metal has been shown from the
applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The
recovered ornaments cannot be linked with any offence. Except the
confession of the applicant in police custody at this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence against the applicant. The criminal history of the
applicant has been explained in para 7 of the bail application. The applicant
is in jail since 8.1.2026. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the
said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits
that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

5. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court prima facie finds that there
is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Except the confession of
the applicant in police custody at this stage, there is no corroborative
evidence against the applicant.
BAIL No. 12181 of 2026
2

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- Manvendra @ Monu, 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;

(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.
BAIL No. 12181 of 2026
3

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.

April 20, 2026
S.S.
(Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…