Allahabad High Court
KESHAV RAM @ MANJESHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The Court held that the accused is entitled to bail as his alleged participation is not substantiated and he is not directly connected to the offence.
Summary
The accused Keshav Ram @ Manjesh applied for bail in a kidnapping case (Crime No. 278 of 2026) while the trial is pending. He was implicated based solely on a co-accused Uttam Bajpai’s statement linking him to other child‑trafficking cases, which are not part of the present charge. The State argued that there is clinching evidence and opposed bail. The Court examined the submissions and noted that the applicant’s alleged involvement is not directly connected to the current offence and that the co‑accused’s statement alone does not justify continued detention. Relying on Supreme Court precedents in Girish Gandhi and Policy Strategy for grant of bail, the Court allowed the bail application without addressing the merits of the case. The applicant was ordered to be released on personal bond with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused’s alleged involvement is derived only from a co‑accused’s statement and not directly linked to the offence.
- Whether the State’s claim of clinching evidence warrants denial of bail.
- How the Supreme Court’s recent bail jurisprudence (Girish Gandhi and Policy Strategy) applies to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 137(2), 143(4), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- kidnapping
- co‑accused statement
- Supreme Court precedent
- Uttar Pradesh
- trial pendency
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29836 of 2026
Keshav Ram @ Manjesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Kumar Pandey, Vaibhav Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit, the same is taken on record.
1A. Heard Sri Atul Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for accused applicant
and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant/ accused-
Keshav Ram @ Manjesh to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 278
of 2026, under Sections 137(2), 143(4), 61(2) BNS, P.S.- Aonla, District-
Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused/applicant that the
accused applicant has been implicated during investigation in the FIR
dated 24.05.2026 lodged by one Raman with the allegation that on
24.05.2026 at about 10:30 a.m. his son was playing along with two other
children. After some time, the two children returned but his son aged
about 1-1/2 years did not return. He has lodged the FIR on 24.05.2026 at
about 15:34 hours for the said kidnapping. During investigation, the
police party on the basis of report of police informer has apprehended two
accused persons, namely, Yogesh and Pawan in police encounter case
and recovered the kidnapped child. The name of accused/applicant has
been figured out during investigation, wherein the statement of co-
accused Uttam Bajpai clearly shows the complicity of accused/applicant
in the other two cases of child trafficking, which is not subject matter of
the present case and there is nothing on record to show the said two cases
of the child trafficking, which is revealed by co-accused Uttam Bajpai. He
BAIL No. 29836 of 2026
2
submits that the charge sheet is submitted. He has no criminal history.
Further submits that the co-accused Sanjay Kumar Biswas @ Sanjay
Kumar and Sita have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this
Court. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 30.05.2026. He
seeks enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State has opposed the prayer for bail and submits
that there is clinching evidence against the accused/applicant. Hence
seeks that the bail application be rejected.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering that the name of accused/applicant has figured out from
the statement of co-accsued and the accused/applicant is not connected
with the present case, the accused/applicant is entitled to be released on
bail.
7. Hence, without touching merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
8. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the
Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 8, 2026
Abhishek Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…