Allahabad High Court
MANISHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Manish, accused in a case involving multiple IPC offences including murder and assault. The applicant argued that the FIR and witness statements were vague, the third statement of the first informant was unreliable, and that he suffers from a brain tumour requiring treatment. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent judgments on bail and the circumstances of overcrowded prisons, the court found no compelling reason to deny bail. Consequently, the court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions. The order also directed procedural steps for verification and communication of the bail order.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial for the offences under Sections 103, 191, 190, 109, 115, 352, 351, 333, 3 and 61 of the IPC.
- Whether the alleged unreliability of the third statement of the first informant affects the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s serious health condition (brain tumour) warrants the grant of bail.
- Whether the pending investigation and the number of unexamined witnesses justify denial of bail.
- How the Supreme Court precedents in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI and Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition No.4 of 2021) influence the bail determination.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 109, 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 3(5), 351(2), 352, 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- health condition
- overcrowded prisons
- evidentiary reliability
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9162 of 2026
Manish
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Kumar Gupta, G.A.
Court No. - 67
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Kumar
Gupta, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Roshan Kumar Singh, learned
A.G.A. for the State.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail
during the trial in Case Crime No. 36 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 191(3),
190, 109, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 333, 3(5), 61(2) BNS, Police Station- Sikanderpur,
District Ballia.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that in the FIR as well as in the
first two statements of first informant and also in the statements of other witnesses,
general allegations have been made against 14 accused persons including the
applicant. Subsequently on the basis of CCTV footage, the first informant assigned the
role of causing head injury with hard and blunt object to the applicant, co-accused
Niranjan and Ramjeet on the basis of CCTV footage. It is further submitted that
during the trial the first informant, in her statement, made general allegations against
all the accused persons for beating and causing injuries and she herself stated in the
statement that she had never seen the CCTV footage. Therefore, 3rd statement of first
informant during investigation is not reliable and the same was recorded by the I.O. on
his own. It is further submitted that hard and blunt object said to be recovered on
pointing out of the applicant, co-accused Niranjan and Ramjeet. It is further submitted
that from perusal of post mortem report of the deceased Pankaj Yadav and Anil
Kumar, it is clear that Anil Kumar received one head injury which was found to be
fatal and other four injuries were on non-vital part. Similarly, the deceased Pankaj
Yadav was having two head injuries which were found to be fatal and three other
injuries are on non vital part and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant to
cause head injury to the deceased Pankaj Yadav and Anil Kumar, even otherwise all
the witnesses during trial also made general allegation against all the accused persons
including the applicant. He further submitted that charge sheet has been filed by the
police, therefore, there is no requirement for custodial interrogation. It is lastly
BAIL No. 9162 of 2026
2
submitted that out of 29 witnesses, till date only 12 witnesses have been examined and
the trial may take time to be concluded. The applicant is suffering from brain tumor,
and in case the applicant remains in incarceration he will not receive proper
treatment. The applicant has explained the criminal history of one case in the
accompanying affidavit and he is languishing in jail since 10.02.2025. In case, he is
granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial
proceedings.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first informant as well as learned A.G.A.
for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity
of accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal
cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the
Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on
bail.
6. Let the applicant- Manish involved in the aforementioned crime be released on
bail, on his 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 not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking
any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime
after being released on bail.
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed
by him.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
8. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the
court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
9. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of downloaded copy
of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the
concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15
BAIL No. 9162 of 2026
3
days.
10. It is directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail
through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the
applicant.
11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through concerned
Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal in compliance of the order of the
Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ
Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.
April 3, 2026
A.Kr.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AJAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…