Allahabad High Court

MANIRAMversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 25 March 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The Court held that bail could not be granted as the applicant’s prima facie involvement and the seriousness of the offences outweighed any claim of innocence or parity.

Summary

The applicant, Maniram, sought enlargement of bail in a criminal case (Cr.No. 50 of 2014) involving alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B of the IPC relating to forged sale deeds and land mutation. He claimed to be merely a marginal witness in a civil dispute over land and argued that co‑accused had been granted bail, invoking parity. The State opposed, contending that material collected by the investigating officer established the applicant’s prima‑facie involvement and that he also faces a pending case (Cr.No. 101 of 2024) with similar charges. The Court examined the allegations, noting that the applicant was aware of the fraudulent nature of the sale deeds and that his participation could not be dismissed as innocent. Considering the gravity of the offences, the pending case, and the lack of any compelling reason to believe he would not misuse liberty, the Court found no ground for bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether a marginal witness alleged to have participated in forged sale deeds can be granted bail under the IPC offences charged.
Whether the existence of a pending criminal case and the seriousness of the alleged offences preclude bail.
Whether parity with co‑accused who have been granted bail is applicable in this circumstance.
Whether the civil nature of the underlying land dispute affects the bail determination.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506

Subjects

bail
marginal witness
forgery
land mutation
IPC sections 419 420 467 468 471 120-B
criminal antecedent
parity
prima facie guilt

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9410 of 2026

Maniram
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Uday Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Samondra Singh, learned counsel under the authority of Sri Uday
Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Puneet Kumar Singh, learned
AGA for the State and perused the records.

The instant bail application has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in
Case Crime NO. 50 of 2014, under Sections 419, 420, 468, 467, 471, 120-B
of IPC, Police Station Phase-3 Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, during
the pendency of the trial before the court below. The bail application of the
applicant before the court below has been rejected by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Gautam Buddh Nagar, vide order dated
24.02.2026 and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 14.01.2026.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the instant case crime number for oblique
motives. The FIR giving rise to the instant case crime number was lodged by
the first informants Pramod Yadav and Vinod Yadav sons of late Sri
Nanakchand nominating 15 persons including the applicant with the
allegation that the informants are the recorded Bhumidhars in possession of
Khasra No. 115, situate in village Garhi Chaukhandi, Pargana and Tehsil
Dadri, Police Station Phase-3, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar and on perusal
of the relevant khatauni of the aforesaid khasra on 27.02.2023 it was
revealed that the nominated persons have got their names mutated over the
khasra of the informant on the strength of forged fictitious sale deeds by
setting up imposters and fictitious identity and Aadhar cards. The aforesaid
persons have also acted as marginal witnesses for each other in the sale
BAIL No. 9410 of 2026
2

deeds so executed besides three other witnesses have also been set up. On
the strength of the fictitious sale deeds seven mutation applications were
filed and names have been got recorded and the ancestral land of the
informants have been grabbed. The applicant is stated to have acted as a
witness of the sale deed.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is merely a
marginal witness of the sale deed and no sinister purpose can be said to be
attracted to the case of the applicant so as to attract the offences alleged. The
dispute is essentially a civil dispute. The applicant has criminal antecedents
of one other case i.e. Case Crime No. 101 of 2024 under Sections 420, 468,
467, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC in which he is yet to be bailed out. Learned
counsel for the applicant has further argued that co-accused Furkan, Rajesh,
Rohit Verma and Praveen Yadav have been enlarged in bail and the
applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground parity. The
applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty
if released on bail. Hence bail is prayed for.

Per contra, the bail plea has been vehemently opposed by the learned AGA
by submitting that the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the
crime stands established from the material collected by the Investigating
Officer during investigation. The applicant is prima-facie guilty of the
offence alleged. The bail plea deserves outright rejection.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
records, I find that the applicant as a marginal witness identified the
sellers/imposters being fully aware that the alleged sellers are not the owners
of the land subject matter of the sale deeds. The applicant is also involved in
another case of similar nature in which he is yet to be bailed out. In such
view of the matter is not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this state.
No case for parity is made out.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be
inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is
likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the
evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima-facie, the
involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No
reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is
no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the
BAIL No. 9410 of 2026
3

contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the
merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering
application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this
stage that the accused has not committed an offence.

In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case
for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.

It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is
limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made
herein shall not effect the trial of the case.

March 26, 2026
pks
(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
PAWAN KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…