Allahabad High Court

MONU @ MANMOHANversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that, in the absence of corroborative evidence linking the accused to the offence and given the procedural deficiencies, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Monu @ Manmohan, who was arrested in connection with a case (Crime No. 115 of 2026) involving alleged assault and homicide. The applicant claimed false implication, noting that the FIR was lodged belatedly, the post‑mortem indicated prior medical treatment for which no records were produced, and video footage did not show the deceased at the scene. The prosecution could not produce corroborative evidence linking the accused to the offence and failed to counter the applicant’s submissions. The court observed that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, has been in custody for over a month, and there is no material risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in view of the alleged offences under the IPC.
Whether the prosecution has sufficient evidentiary basis to deny bail.
Whether the delay in filing the FIR and absence of medical documentation affect the bail decision.
Whether there is a risk of the accused tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or causing trial delay.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 115(2), 191(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352

Subjects

bail
false implication
post‑mortem evidence
lack of corroborative evidence
Indian Penal Code
criminal trial
medical documentation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15447 of
2026

Monu @ Manmohan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,
Anurag Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi,
learned A.G.A. 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. 115 of 2026,
under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 105, 3(5), 191(2) B.N.S.,
Police Station Najibabad, District Bijnor during the pendency of
the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present case. The alleged
incident is stated to have occurred on 09.03.2026. As per the first
information report, the applicant along with two accused is
alleged to have assaulted the informant, his father Rampal and his
two brothers Lalit and Monu. The injured Lalit and Monu were
medically examined on 09.03.2026 at 10.15 a.m. and 10.30 a.m.
respectively at CHC, Najibabad, Bijnor. The injuries sustained by
them were found to be simple in nature. The first information
report was subsequently lodged on 13.03.2026 under Sections
115(2), 351(2), 352 B.N.S. The father of the informant died on
14.03.2026. Thereafter Sections 105, 3(5) and 191(2) B.N.S.
were added. The postmortem examination was conducted on
BAIL No. 15447 of 2026
2

15.03.2026. As per the postmortem report, the following injuries
were recorded: "Injury No. 1, Stitched wound of size 7 cm with 10
stitches present at mid line of cranium slightly toward Rt. side, 8
cm. above from base of nose, fracture of parietal bone and Rt
temporal bone. Injury No. 2, Abraded contusion 15 cm x 4 cm.
present at Lt. forearm, fracture of radius and ulna." According to
the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is cranio cerebral
damage due to ante mortem head injury. It is contended that no
medical examination report of the deceased prior to his death, is
available in the case diary. The stitched wound mentioned in the
postmortem report clearly indicates that there was medical
intervention prior to his death. However, no such treatment
papers or medical documents have been collected or produced by
the prosecution. It is next contended that as per three video
footage of the alleged incident, the deceased is not seen present at
the place of occurrence. It is argued that the deceased had
sustained injuries elsewhere and was not in the present incident.
The applicant is in jail since 28.03.2026 having no criminal
history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said
liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. 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 first
information report was lodged belatedly. The stitched wound
mentioned in the postmortem report clearly indicates that there
was medical intervention prior to his death. However, no such
treatment papers or medical documents have been collected or
produced by the prosecution. As per three video footage of the
alleged incident, the deceased is not seen present at the place of
occurrence. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to
link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for
more than a month and after submission of the charge-sheet 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
BAIL No. 15447 of 2026
3

evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore,
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- Monu @ Manmohan, 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 6, 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…