Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41285 of 2025

Manoj Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.			....	.Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Padmaker Shukla	Pandey,	Rakesh	Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶5

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed, today in Court, on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Purushottam Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Manoj Kumar seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.206 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence of fraud with the informant as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 26.8.2025. It is submitted that applicant is not vendor, vendee or marginal witness of the so called forged sale deed which and he has been implicated in the present case just because he is the husband of vendee Sushma Awasthi. It is further submitted that applicant is indirectly a victim in the present case and her wife Sushma Awasthi has paid consideration amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in favour of vendor Shambhu Dayal. It is argued that no reliable material evidence is available on record to show that applicant has taken any consideration amount or he is the beneficiary in the present case and a civil case has also been filed before the revenue court/civil court having jurisdiction in this regard. It is further argued that the incident had occurred in the year 2013, whereas FIR has been registered

¶10

BAIL No. 41285 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

in the year 2025 after about 12 years of the incident for which no explanation has been furnished by the prosecution. It is next argued that applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

¶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

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

¶18

(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

¶19

BAIL No. 41285 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

appearing in the evidence against him.

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

December 1, 2025 RA

¶26

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar 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

Similar cases

Chandan Nishad vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Verma vs State of U.P.

Kashif Anwar vs State of U.P.

Suraj Narayan vs State of U.P.

Anshul Solanki Alias Lalu vs State of U.P.

Yamin @ Amin @ Kalla vs State of U.P.