Allahabad High Court

RAJU MANJHIversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 27 September 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail.

Summary

The applicant, Raju Manjhi, sought bail in a murder case (S.C.No.519 of 2026) where he was not named in the FIR but eye‑witness statements implicated him. The applicant argued that the witnesses’ statements were recorded after a delay, were doubtful, and that he had no prior criminal record and was a poor labourer. The State contended that three eye‑witnesses directly identified the applicant as having participated in the murder and that their statements could not be disbelieved. The court examined the credibility of the eye‑witness testimonies and noted that the applicant’s name surfaced only during investigation, not in the FIR. Concluding that the prima facie evidence did not establish innocence, the court refused bail, emphasizing that the order was limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial merits.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the FIR but eye‑witness statements implicate him.
Whether the delay in recording eye‑witness statements renders them unreliable for bail considerations.
Whether the accused's lack of prior criminal record and poverty are sufficient grounds for bail.
Whether the fact that the informant is not an eye‑witness affects the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 3(5)

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
eye‑witness testimony
FIR
prima facie evidence
murder
Indian Penal Code
Section 103
Section 3

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34392 of 2026

Raju Manjhi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 65
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant
with the prayer to release him on bail in S.C.No.519 of 2026 arising out
of Case Crime No.689 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) BNS,
Police Station Sahjanwa, District Gorakhpur during pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named
in the FIR but during investigation the statement of one Shyam Singh
was recorded and he stated that his Clerk informed him that witnesses
Ram Janam Manjhi, Chhottu Manjhi and Ranjeet were saying that
applicant along with co-accused Babloo Manjhi and Mangal Manjhi were
quarreling with the deceased and when statement of above witnesses were
recorded by Investigating Officer then they have stated that on the date of
incident in front of them applicant along with three others had dragged the
deceased in the wheat field and committed his murder but statements of
alleged eye witnesses prima facie appears to be doubtful.

4. He further argued that even statements of above witnesses were
recorded after two days. He next submits that applicant is poor labour
and he was not having any concern with the alleged incident and his
dispute never arose with the deceased and it reflects that dispute of the
deceased arose with the brother of applicant, i.e., co-accused Pappu and
only due to this reason witnesses also disclosed his name in their
statements.
BAIL No. 34392 of 2026
2

5. He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal
history to his credit and in the present matter he is in jail since
27.12.2025, i.e., for the last more than nine months.

6. He further submits that therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that
however, applicant is not named in the FIR but informant of the case was
not the eye witness.

8. Learned AGA further argued that there are three eye witnesses,
namely, Ram Janam Manjhi, Chhotu and Ranjeet and they categorically
stated that when dispute of the deceased arose with the brother of the
applicant Pappu and one another then applicant along with his another
brother Mangal arrived at spot and dragged the deceased in the field and
committed his murder. He next submits that the statements of these
witnesses at this stage cannot be disbelieved.

9. He further submits that considering the facts of the case instant bail
application may be dismissed .

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.

11. However, applicant was not named in the FIR and during
investigation his name has been surfaced but informant of the case was
not the eye witness.

12. Record further suggests that witnesses Ram Janam Manjhi , Chhotu
and Ranjeet were the eye witnesses and according to them when dispute
of the deceased arose with co-accused Pappu, the brother of the applicant
then thereafter applicant arrived at spot along with another brother, i.e.,
co-accused Mangal and thereafter they dragged the deceased in the field
and committed his murder.

13. Considering the statements of above eye witnesses prima facie it
cannot be said that applicant is innocent. In view of this Court, there is no
occasion to disbelieve their statements at this stage.

14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
BAIL No. 34392 of 2026
3

discussed above, in my view, applicant is not entitled to be released on
bail.

15. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.
16. 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.

(Sameer Jain,J.)
September 28, 2026
SKM

Digitally signed by :-
SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…