Allahabad High Court

MANOJ KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 15 March 2026
Bench: HARVIR SINGH

Holding

Bail is denied as the applicant’s specific role in causing the fatal injury is established and distinguishes him from co‑accused who were granted bail.

Summary

Manoj Kumar, accused in a multi‑charge case (including murder under IPC s.304) arising from an incident on 21‑June‑2024, applied for enlargement of bail. He claimed false implication, delay in filing the FIR, and pointed to bail granted to co‑accused. The State argued that the applicant inflicted a fatal head injury on the victim, Shiv Kumar Pandey, which led to death, and that witnesses corroborated this. The Court examined the nature of the offences, the evidence linking the applicant to the fatal injury, and the distinction between his role and that of the co‑accused who had been bailed. Concluding that the applicant’s specific role in causing the death was established, the Court declined to enlarge bail. Both bail applications (Nos. 35889/2024 and 37187/2025) were rejected.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with murder and other serious offences when his role in causing the victim's death is established.
Whether the delay in registration of the FIR and the existence of cross‑cases affect the applicant's eligibility for bail.
Whether bail granted to co‑accused influences the decision on bail for the applicant.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 304, 307, 308, 323, 352, 427, 452, 504, 506
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a)

Subjects

bail
murder
IPC
SC/ST Act
false implication
trial
septicemia
injury
co‑accused

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35889 of 2024

Manoj Kumar
.....Applicant(s)

Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite

Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bipin Bihari, Prakhar Saran Srivastava,
Rakesh Kumar Mathur, Shashi Bhushan
Kunwar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Janardhan Yadav, Ram Pravesh Yadav,
Sunita Chauhan, G.A.

Along with :
1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37187 of 2025:
Manoj Kumar
Versus
State of U.P.

Court No. - 86
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

1. Since both the above-mentioned connected bail applications arise out of
the same incident and case crime, therefore, are being decided together by a
common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State
and perused the material on record.

3. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime
No. 331 of 2024, under Sections-147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 352, 452, 427,
307, 308 IPC and Case Crime No. 331 of 2024, under Section 304 IPC, P.
S.-Rasra, district-Ballia, and is in jail since 05.7.2024, is seeking
enlargement on bail during trial.

4. In the F. I. R., 36 named and 152 persons, including the applicant, were
nominated. There are counter allegations against each other and there is one
cross case also, being Case Crime No. 323 of 2024, under Sections- 147,
323, 504, 506 IPC and under Sections-3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (v-a) S.
C. / S. T. Act, which has been lodged by respective parties against each
BAIL No. 35889 of 2024
2

other.

5. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant the applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case. The F. I. R. is delayed, as the same was
registered on 25.6.2024, whereas the incident is alleged to have taken place
on 21.6.2024, wherein one person, namely Shiv Kumar Pandey got injured
and died after undergoing treatment for about ten months and ten days. It is
further submitted that as per the report of the doctor, it has been narrated that
the patient died due to long illness and for the reason that no proper
treatment was given to the deceased, and died due to septicemia and
thereafter Section 304 IPC was added to the existing Sections in the said
case crime. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first
information report of the incident was lodged on their behalf of the cross
case Learned counsel also submitted that there are cross cases between the
parties, therefore, it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the
aggressor. He has further submitted that the co-accused, namely, Ekbal alias
Bala, Sugriv and Hardev, who collectively filed Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 36060 of 2024, have been granted bail by a coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.2.2025. The orders granting bail by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court to the other co-accused, namely Kamlesh in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3883 of 2025 vide order dated
31.7.2025 and Sunil Kumar and Shiv Kumar, in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 4487 of 2025 vide order dated 28.7.2025, have also been
produced before the Court by learned counsel for the applicant. He has lastly
submitted that the applicant who has no criminal antecedents, is in jail since
5.7.2024, is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the role
of inflicting head injury, causing fracture at the temporal bone of the injured
Shiv Kumar Pandey, who ultimately died during treatment, has specifically
been assigned to the applicant. He further submitted that one of the
witnesses, namely, Sundaram Singh and one independent witness, namely
Manoj Kumar, S/o Late Vishuni Ram, also corroborated the incident in the
same manner, it was narrated in the F. I. R., therefore, he is not entitled to be
enlarged on bail.

7. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, nature of offence,
evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and all
attending facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the role of
causing fracture at the temporal bone of the injured Shiv Kumar Pandey,
which proved fatal to him and he ultimately died during treatment, has
specifically been assigned to the applicant. Not only that, there were two
BAIL No. 35889 of 2024
3

other injured also namely, Raj Singh and Nand Lal Upadhyay, who also
sustained injuries but recovered at the later stage. Further, a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, while granting bail to the co-accused Ram Ekbal alias
Bala, Sugriv and Hardev in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36060 of
2024 has taken note of the fact that specific role of assault at the head of
injured, Shiv Kumar (deceased), which proved fatal to his life, has been
assigned to co-accused Manoj (applicant herein), Besides, septicemia which
developed, was a result of the injuries sustained by the deceased Shiv Kumar
Pandey.

8. Since the cause of death is co-related with the injuries caused and
ultimately developing septicemia, therefore, the role of present applicant is
clearly distinguishable from that of the other co-accused, who have been
granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, hence, the prayer for
bail made on behalf of the applicant is declined.

9. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35889 Of 2024 and
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37187 of 2025, moved on behalf of the
applicant, Manoj Kumar are rejected.

March 16, 2026
HR
(Harvir Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
HEMANT RANJAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…