Allahabad High Court
MANISH MADHESIYAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that, prima facie, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
Manish Madhesiya applied for bail in a criminal case (Crime No.100 of 2026) involving alleged offences under IPC sections 64(1), 123 and 351(2). The applicant claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was filed three days after the incident without explanation, the 22‑year‑old victim appeared to be a consenting party, there was no medical evidence or sign of struggle, and a neighbour’s statement suggested the FIR was filed to coerce marriage. The State opposed bail, but the court noted the delay in filing, lack of medical corroboration, and apparent consent as factors indicating a prima facie case for bail. Without passing on the merits, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The bail order emphasized that breach of conditions would lead to cancellation and would not affect the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case under IPC sections 64(1), 123 and 351(2) given the alleged facts.
- Whether the three‑day delay in filing the FIR and absence of medical evidence create a prima facie case for bail.
- Whether the victim's apparent consent negates the alleged offences.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 123, 351(2), 64(1)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- delay in FIR
- consent
- medical evidence
- IPC sections 64, 123, 351
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15338 of 2026
Manish Madhesiya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vikas Yadav, Vishveshwar Mani
Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prashant Pratap Rao, Rajiv
Chowdhury
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.48 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant
Pratap Rao, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.100 of 2026, under Sections 64(1),
123, 351(2) BNS, Police Station Badhalganj, District Gorakhpur, during the
pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said
delay caused. The victim is major aged about 22 years and she seems to be a
consenting party as there is no medical corroboration of the incident. There
is no sign of struggle by the victim.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that even the
statement of neighbour of the victim indicates that the victim has instituted
the FIR to coerce the applicant into marrying her, as such, it is a clear cut
case of false implication. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail
since 17.3.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 15338 of 2026
2
6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently
opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned
counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the delay in institution of FIR coupled by the fact that victim
seems to be a consenting party and there being no medical corroboration of
the incident and also there being no sign of any struggle by the victim, and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the
Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail
application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Manish Madhesiya, be released on bail on furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not
tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the
trial court as required.
9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…