Allowed

Manish Agrahari (Gupta) v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025BAIL/41676/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application for an accused in an assault case where no specific role was assigned and injuries were simple. Court relied on Apex Court precedents on bail, granted bail with conditions including presence at trial and no tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties, subject to stated trial conduct conditions.

Manish Agrahari (Gupta) vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41676 of 2025

¶3

Manish Agrahari (Gupta)

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Manish Agrahari (Gupta) seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.170 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 118(1), 115(2) 324(5), 351(3), 352, 140(1) and 126(2) B.N.S., P.S. Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that F.I.R. has been registered against 10 named accused and some unknown persons. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that accused-applicant and other co-accused persons have caused injury to the injured person by means of hard and blunt object and knife but no specific or separate role has been assigned to the applicant either in the F.I.R. or in the statements of the injured Ankur Tripathi and Sandeep Tripathi recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. He further submitted that as per injury report of the injured Ankur Tripathi, swelling, abrasion were found on the body of the injured. Two sutured wounds and complaint of pain were found on the body of injured Sandeep Tripathi. No fracture or grievous injury is said to be caused by the applicant. Main role of causing sharp weapon injury on the neck of the injured has been assigned to Shivpujan Chaudhary whose bail application has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2025. It is argued that co-accused Raju Chodhary and Vijapal Chaudhary have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.37650 of 2025. It is further argued that one NCR No.333 of 2022 has been registered against the applicant in which he has been granted bail and this fact has been explained in para-21 of the bail application.The applicant is in jail since 06.11.2025. 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

¶10

BAIL No. 41676 of 2025

¶11

¶12

bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has 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. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will 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 SSC 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 appearing in the evidence against him.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

November 26, 2025 Asha

¶23

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish Agrahari (Gupta) v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Agrahari (Gupta) 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheebu vs State of U.P.

Nida vs State of U.P.

Vakil Kumar Bind and Another vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Raja Singh vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar Alias Raju vs State of U.P.