Allahabad High Court

MANOJ RAMversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 11 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

In the absence of corroborative evidence and given the violation of the accused’s right to a speedy trial, the Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

Manoj Ram was arrested on 28 August 2024 on the basis of information from an informer, although his name was not mentioned in the original FIR filed on that date. The charge‑sheet later amended the case to include sections 105, 303(2) and 317(2) of the Indian Penal Code, but the prosecution presented no independent witness or corroborative evidence linking the accused to the alleged offences. The applicant argued that the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of material evidence violated his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State opposed bail but could not demonstrate any risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or that the trial delay was caused by the applicant. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was prima facie weak and that the prolonged pre‑trial detention infringed the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of Manoj Ram on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted when the accused was not named in the FIR and the prosecution lacks corroborative evidence.
Whether the delay in investigation and trial violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21, warranting bail.
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused might tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 21
Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 105, 123, 303(2), 309(4), 317(2)

Subjects

bail
right to speedy trial
Article 21
Indian Penal Code
lack of evidence
pre‑trial detention
false implication

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13918 of 2025

Manoj Ram
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pratik Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra,
learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 459 of 2024, under Sections 105,
303(2), 317(2) B.N.S., Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad during
the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not
named in the first information report. The incident is alleged to have
occurred on 19.08.2024, whereas the first information report was lodged by
Sub-Inspector Pramod Kumar on 28.08.2024 under Section 103(1), 123,
309(4) B.N.S. The delay in lodging the first information report is fatal to the
prosecution case. On the basis of the information furnished by an informer
the applicant was arrested on 28.08.2024 and has been falsely implicated in
the present case. During the course of investigation the case was converted
into Sections 105, 303(2), 317(2) B.N.S. False recovery of a handbag, a
mobile phone, an ATM card, shirt, T-shirt, Aadhar Card and other articles
has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the
alleged recovery. Thereafter, the photograph of the applicant was published
in the newspapers and on the basis of the newspaper publication, two
witnesses, namely, Surendra and Dinesh Pal stated that the person, whose
photograph was published in the newspaper, had thrown the body of the
deceased on the footpath. It is contended that the said statements are wholly
unreliable. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police
BAIL No. 13918 of 2025
2

authorities. It is also contended that the CCTV footage merely shows that the
applicant was travelling in an auto rickshaw, which in no manner connects
the applicant with the alleged offence. At this stage there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, as per the charge-
sheet the prosecution proposes to examine nineteen witnesses to bring home
the charges. At present, the statement of the informant has only been
recorded. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and has always cooperated
with the investigation, and has attended the trial. The applicant never
influenced the witnesses nor tampered with the evidence. Undue delay
caused by the prosecution witnesses has led to prolonged incarceration of the
applicant. The trial is moving at snail's pace and shows no sign of early
conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in conclusion of
trial. Inordinate delay in concluding the trial has led to indefinite
imprisonment of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 28.08.2024
having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse
the said liberty.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but
could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the
first information report. On the basis of the information furnished by an
informer the applicant was arrested on 28.08.2024. There is no independent
witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no corroborative
evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, as per the charge-
sheet the prosecution proposes to examine nineteen witnesses to bring home
the charges. At present, the statement of the informant has only been
recorded. Undue delay caused by the prosecution witnesses have led to pro-
longed incarceration of the applicant. Even the prosecution could not bring
on record any material, which would show that the trial has been delayed on
account of any fault on the part of the present applicant. Thus, the 'right of
speedy trial' of the applicant as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is violated. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one year and
eight months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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 delay
the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the
BAIL No. 13918 of 2025
3

merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant- Manoj Ram, involved in the aforesaid case, be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that
he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

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.

May 12, 2026
SKT/- (Vivek Varma,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…