Manish vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34133 of 2025

Manish

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Ram Shiromani Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Manish with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 38 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of BNS, Police Station Rajpura, District Sambhal during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that as per the allegation contained in the F.I.R., applicant in connivance with other co-accused had executed sale deed, after taking full consideration amount, of Arazi No. 165Kha/0.455 in favour of informant. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that earlier, the same land had already been sold out to one Phulaniya wife of Chatrapal. He further submits that neither the applicant has executed any sale deed to the vendee, nor he had received any amount of sale consideration, rather when this fact came into the knowledge of applicant, he filed a civil suit bearing no. 18 of 2025 for cancellation of alleged sale deed before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Gunnaur, District Sambhal, on 07.02.2025, in which notice was issued and the suit is still pending. He further submits that in counterblast to the aforesaid proceedings, informant initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant due to malafide intention. He further submits that applicant is not the beneficiary or taken any

¶10

BAIL No. 34133 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

consideration amount in lieu of aforementioned two sale deed. He further submits that applicant has not criminal history. He further submits that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. 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 has 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. Applicant is languishing in jail since 19.08.2025.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence, however, he conceded the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed in the instant matter on 26.08.2025.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.

¶17

BAIL No. 34133 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶21

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly in accordance with law.

¶22

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

¶23

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶25

November 17, 2025 Bhanu

¶26

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yakoob vs State of U.P.

Yakoob vs State of U.P.

Yakoob vs State of U.P.

Rahul vs State of U.P.

Gyanendra vs State of U.P.

Arjun Jatav vs State of U.P.