Allahabad High Court
MANTU VISHWAKARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that Mantu Vishwakarma is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Mantu Vishwakarma, who was named in an FIR alleging assault leading to death and injuries under various IPC sections and the POCSO Act. The applicant argued that the allegations against him were false, that no medical evidence existed for the alleged injuries to other persons, and that the victim’s statement implicated only co-accused Kishan Vishwakarma for the fatal head injury. The court noted that the FIR and witness statements, except the victim’s, assigned only a general role to all accused, and the post‑mortem confirmed a single head injury consistent with the victim’s later identification of Kishan Vishwakarma. It also observed that Kishan Vishwakarma had already been released on bail and that the applicant had no prior criminal record. Consequently, the court granted bail to Mantu Vishwakarma subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being named in the FIR for offences under the IPC and POCSO Act
- Whether the lack of medical evidence for alleged injuries to other persons affects the bail consideration
- Whether the victim’s statement implicating only the co‑accused diminishes the applicant’s culpability
- Whether the grant of bail to the co‑accused influences the applicant’s bail application
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103, 109, 115, 131, 3, 351, 352, 74
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 7, 8
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- POCSO Act
- presumption of innocence
- co‑accused
- post‑mortem report
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33307 of 2026
Mantu Vishwakarma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amritesh Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Hashim Khan, Manvendra Kumar,
Mithilesh Kumar
Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Amritesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant;
Sri Manvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vijay
Kumar, learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 597 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 109(1),
115(2), 131, 74, 352, 351(3) BNS and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station
Gauribazar, District Deoria, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however applicant is
named in the FIR alongwith three others including co-accused Kishan
Vishwakarma and according to the FIR, applicant alongwith others made
assault due to which one person died and some persons sustained injuries but
entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally false.
4. He further submitted that during investigation informant side could not
place medical report of any other injured and therefore, it reflects, there is no
injured of the case.
5. He further submitted that however informant and other witnesses
reiterated the version of the FIR and in the statements recorded by the
Investigating Officer they assigned only general role to all the accused but
when the statement of the victim was recorded then however she initially
assigned general role of assault to all the accused but in mid of her
statement, she categorically stated that co-accused Kishan Vishwakarma
caused head injury to the deceased.
BAIL No. 33307 of 2026
2
6. He further submitted that post mortem report suggests that deceased
sustained single injury on his head and therefore, from the statement of the
victim it reflects, this injury was attributed to co-accused Kishan
Vishwakarma.
7. He further submitted that co-accused Kishan Vishwakarma has been
released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
8.9.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 19435 of 2026 and
considering the statement of victim case of applicant is on better footing than
him.
8. He further submitted that applicant is having no previous criminal history
and he is in jail in the present matter since 10.6.2026 i.e. for last three and
half months.
9. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant
opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts
advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
11. However, applicant is named in the FIR alongwith others but in the FIR
and in the statements of witnesses, except the statement of victim, only
general role has been assigned to all the accused.
12. Further from the statement of the victim recorded during investigation it
reflects, although initially she also assigned general role of assault to all the
accused but thereafter she categorically stated that co-accused Kishan
Vishwakarma caused head injury to the deceased.
13. Post mortem report suggests that deceased sustained only single injury
on his head, therefore, considering the statement of victim it reflects, co-
accused Kishan Vishwakarma caused this injury to him.
14. Further, however from the FIR it reflects, apart from the deceased some
other persons also sustained injuries in the alleged incident of assault but
there is no medical report of any other injured on record to substantiate this
allegations made in the FIR and therefore, prima facie it reflects, there is no
injured in the case.
BAIL No. 33307 of 2026
3
15. Further, co-accused Kishan Vishwakarma who in the light of statement
of victim appears to be prime accused has been released on bail by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court and case of applicant is on better footing than
him.
16. Further, applicant is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail
in the present matter for last three and half months.
17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
19. Let the applicant-Mantu Vishwakarma, 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 the court concerned with the following
conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.
21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during
trial.
September 29, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…