Allowed

Manish Rai v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2025BAIL/1264/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a murder case under Section 103(1) BNS arising from the death of the informant's son. The court found the sole eyewitness a chance witness whose statement was unconvincing, noted delayed FIR and long custody without criminal history, and allowed bail with conditions, without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Manish Rai to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions.

Manish Rai vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58843

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1264 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Manish Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akshay Kumar Shukla,Shubhi Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri J.P.Singh, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA, for the State.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.192 of 2024, under Section 103(1) BNS, Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged on 14.7.2024 at 19.14 hours against the applicant and others and according to the FIR on 13.7.2024 when son of the informant did not return home till night then when informant started searching him then Lila daughter of Vijayee informed him that at about 11.30 PM in the night applicant and other accused persons were making assault upon him and when informant arrived at the alleged place of incident then found that his son was lying dead.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however applicant is named in the FIR but informant was not the eye witness and the FIR is based on the information given by Lila daughter of Vijayee and when her statement was recorded during investigation then she stated that information about the assault by applicant and others was given to her by her brother-in-law (Jija Rambabu) and which his statement was recorded then he although

¶10

claimed himself to be eye witness and stated that applicant made assault upon the deceased but his statement when has been annexed along with the instant bail application does not appear to be convincing.

¶11

He further submits that even witness Rambabu is a chance witnesses. He next submits that except Rambabu there is no other eye witness.

¶12

He further submits that however as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then from his possession one bloodstained 'gamchha' (type of cloth) and brick used in the crime was recovered but entire recovery is false and planed one.

¶13

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 15.7.2024, i.e., for the last more than nine months.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that witness Rambabu is the eye witness and he stated that applicant made assault due to which deceased died but he could not dispute the fact that he was a chance witness.

¶15

Learned AGA however further submits that on the pointing out of applicant one bloodstained gamchha and brick used in the crime was also recovered.

¶16

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

¶17

However, applicant is named in the FIR but it reflects that informant of the case was not the eye witness and applicant has been made accused in the FIR on the basis of information given by one Lila, but it appear, she also could not see the incident and as per prosecution, incident was actually witnessed by her brother-in-

¶18

law (Jija Rambabu) and however when the statement of Rambabu was recorded during investigation then he stated against the applicant and stated that applicant made assault upon the deceased through brick but this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that prima facie his statement does not appear to be convincing and even he was the chance witnesses.

¶19

Further, as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then on his pointing out bloodstained gamchha and brick was recovered but without any cogent evidence merely on the basis of above recoveries at this stage it cannot be said that applicant involved in the present crime.

¶20

Further, incident is said to have taken place on 13.7.2024 at about 11.30 PM but in spite of that FIR was lodged on 14.7.2024 at about 19.14 hours, i.e., after more than 20 hours and this delay in lodging the FIR also cast doubt on the prosecution case.

¶21

Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 15.7.2024, i.e., for the last more than nine months..

¶22

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶24

Let the applicant- Manish Rai be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶26

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 21.4.2025 SKM

¶31

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

Manish Rai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Rai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sundar vs State of U.P.

Irshad vs State of U.P.

Mehraj vs State of U.P.

Vivek Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.

Ramkhelawan vs State of U.P.

Praveen vs State of U.P.