Allowed

Manoj Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025BAIL/2121/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application for an offence involving Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 and 120B IPC. Applicant jailed since June 2021 with only two witnesses examined; role similar to bailed co-accused. Court granted bail on personal bond and sureties with conditions including one-year trial completion target.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to specified conditions.

Manoj Singh vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23682

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2121 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Singh Parmar,Virendra Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Adil Jamal, Shabeh Jamal,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today in Court, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Mr.Adil Jamal, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material available on record.

¶8

By means of this application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.227 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 120B IPC, Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶9

This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 21.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.48855 of 2021 whereby the court directed the court below to expedite the trial within three weeks.

¶10

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. Applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR even there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant. Only general role has been assigned against the applicant. No specific role has been assigned against the applicant. Further submission is that similarly placed co-accused, namely, Rishi Singh Alias Ujala against whom role of firing has been assigned has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44605 of 2024, copy of the bail order has been annexed as Annexure No.8 to the affidavit filed

¶11

in support of bail application. Sole argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.06.2021 and till date only two prosecution witnesses, who are informant and witness, have been examined despite specific direction of this Court and there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.06.2021.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

I have perused the bail order of co-accused Rishi Singh Alias Ujala and find that the role assigned to the present applicant is almost similar to that of co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail. It is also apparent that it would not be possible to conclude the trial in near future and in the opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to keep the applicant in jail till the conclusion of the trial.

¶15

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶16

Let the applicant- Manoj Singh, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :

¶17

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

With the above observation/direction, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶25

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Ajeet

¶26

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Singh 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dhirendra Kumar Singh vs State of Up and Another

Virendra @ Shaktiman vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay and Another vs State of U.P.

Arvind vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravi Alias Raviarya vs State of U.P.

Salik vs State of U.P.