Allahabad High Court

MANISH TIWARI @ MONUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Manish Tiwari under Section 75(1)(i) of the Bail and Surrender Act and Sections 9m/10 of the POCSO Act. The applicant claimed false implication, noting that the informant refused a medical examination of the child and that there was no corroborative evidence linking him to the offence. The charge sheet had been filed and the applicant had been in custody for nearly four months without any criminal history. The State opposed bail but could not demonstrate a risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay. Finding the lack of substantive evidence and the applicant's prolonged pre‑trial detention, the court ordered his release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted under Section 75(1)(i) BNS and Sections 9m/10 POCSO in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Whether the informant's refusal to obtain a medical examination of the victim affects the bail decision.
Whether the applicant's four‑month pre‑trial detention and lack of criminal antecedents justify granting bail.

Legislation cited

Bail and Surrender Act — s. 75(1)(i)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act — s. 10, 9m

Subjects

bail
POCSO
pre‑trial detention
medical examination
evidentiary insufficiency
sureties

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9905 of 2026

Manish Tiwari @ Monu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharam Raj Tripathi, Pankaj Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Learned AGA submits that notice of the present application has been
served on the opposite party no.2-informant and opposite party no.4-Child
Welfare Committee on 28.03.2026. Receiving endorsements produced by
learned AGA, are taken on record. However, no one appears on their
behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Archna Yadav, counsel for
the opposite party no.3 and Sri N.K.Sharma, learned AGA for the State-
respondent.

3. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 382 of 2025, under Section 75(1)(i)
BNS and Section 9m/10 POCSO Act, Police Station Jigna, District Mirzapur
during the pendency of trial.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The applicant did not act inappropriately with
the victim. The informant refused to get the victim medically examined. At
this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. Investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been filed. The
applicant is in jail since 22.12.2025 having no criminal history and in case
he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
BAIL No. 9905 of 2026
2

6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the informant refused to get the victim medically
examined. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost four months and
after submission of charge sheet, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial,
more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by
the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the
evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on
the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.

7. Let the applicant Manish Tiwari @ Monu involved in the aforesaid case
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 subject to the
conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
April 20, 2026
Lbm/-

Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…