Allahabad High Court
MONU PALversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
In the absence of independent evidence and without a showing that the accused’s criminal history poses a risk to the trial, bail must be granted.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application under Section 483 of the CrPC for Monu Pal, who was arrested in connection with a case under IPC Sections 305, 331(4) and 317(2). The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the alleged recovery of weapons and money lacked independent witnesses, and that there was no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence. The State opposed bail citing the applicant’s criminal antecedents. The Court observed that no independent witness or corroborative evidence existed, and that the State had not shown any risk of tampering, intimidation, or evasion of law by the applicant. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that a history‑sheeter is not automatically denied bail and that multiple pending cases do not justify refusal. Considering the applicant’s five‑month pre‑trial confinement and lack of exceptional circumstances, the Court granted bail subject to conditions and surety.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a non‑bailable offence where the accused was not named in the FIR and lacks corroborative evidence.
- Whether the applicant’s criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.
- Whether prolonged pre‑trial detention warrants the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code — s. 305, 317(2), 331(4)
Subjects
- bail
- non‑bailable offence
- criminal antecedents
- pre‑trial detention
- evidence
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3252 of 2026
Monu Pal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kishan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amar Jeet, G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Case called out in the revised list. Counsel for the informant is not
present.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K.Sharma, learned
AGA for the State-respondent.
3. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed
with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 296 of
2025, under Sections 305, 331(4), 317(2) BNS, Police Station Tharvai,
District Prayagraj during the pendency of trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in
the first information report. The applicant was arrested on 24.11.2025 and
has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of a
country made pistol, two live cartridges, 24 mobile phones, a mobile
charger and Indian currency of Rs. 1,745/- has been shown from the
applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The
recovered mobile phones and Indian currency cannot be connected with
the offence. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. Criminal history of the applicant has been
explained in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is
in jail since 25.11.2025 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.
5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the
BAIL No. 3252 of 2026
2
applicant has criminal antecedents.
6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged
recovery. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence.
7. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the
case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely
influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or
during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in
past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court if the
accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail
only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the
basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused,
hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on
the ground that he had criminal antecedent.
8. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex
Court in para 30 has observed:-
"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we
may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But,
it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in
respect of which he has been booked."
9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020
(11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of
several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for
refusal of bail.
10. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than five months
and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial and without commenting on
the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
11. Let the applicant Monu Pal, involved in the aforesaid case be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view
BAIL No. 3252 of 2026
3
of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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;
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and
(iv) shall appear on first Sunday of every month at the Police Station
concerned.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
May 5, 2026
Lbm/-
Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…