Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

MANISH ARYAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

The court held that prima facie the applicant is entitled to bail.

Summary

Manish Arya, the step‑father of the victim, applied for bail in a case registered under Sections 64(2)M, 76, 115(2), 351(3) and 351(2) of the Indian Penal Code. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR was delayed by seventeen days, and that the investigating officer had not recovered any video evidence. The State opposed the bail, but the court noted the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of material evidence, and, without expressing a view on the merits, found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The order emphasized that any breach would lead to cancellation of bail and would not affect the trial on merits.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted given the delay in filing the FIR and lack of video evidence.
  • Whether the allegations against the applicant constitute false implication.
  • Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • false implication
  • delay in FIR
  • Indian Penal Code
  • criminal procedure
  • step‑father
  • evidence preservation

Judgment

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29883 of 2026

Manish Arya
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                       Versus

State of U.P.
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                  :     Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)             :     G.A.

Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.77 out of 80 T.C.)

                             HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Uma Shanker Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.356 of 2025, under Sections
64(2)M, 76, 115(2), 351(3), 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Nagar,
District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is the step-
father of the victim and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
allegations are per se false. The applicant and his wife are estranged; as
such, the instant FIR has been instituted. There is no recovery of any video
by the Investigating Officer; as such, it is a clear-cut case of false
implication. The FIR itself is delayed by about seventeen days, and there is
no explanation of the said delay caused either. The criminal history of one
case assigned to the applicant stands explained. He is in jail since
07.04.2026 and undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the
liberty of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.
                                                                                             BAIL No. 29883 of 2026
                                                                        2


                                    6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
                                    made by learned counsel for the parties, and the evidence on record, taking
                                    into consideration the delay in the institution of the FIR and the fact that no
                                    video was recovered by the Investigating Officer, 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.

                                    7. Let        the   applicant- Manish
                                                                        Arya, be released on bail in the
                                    aforementioned case crime 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.

                                    8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
                                    herein shall not affect the trial on merits.



                                                                                              (Krishan Pahal,J.)
                                    September 11, 2026
                                    (Ravi Kant)




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

Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.