Manoj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 11.02.2024 at about 08.30 am, the informant came to know that the dead body of his son Ram Baran Yadav was lying in the ditch on the way to Gulariya. There is a cut mark on the neck of his deceased son.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is not named in the FIR. Even the complainant in his statement under Section 161 CrPC has not taken the name of the applicant. On the basis of the statement of one Vandana who had illicit relationship with the present applicant and also the deceased, the motive has been given by the prosecution to the applicant and after that, the confessional statement of the applicant was recorded wherein it is alleged that he has committed the alleged offence. The false recovery has been shown against him. The case is of circumstantial evidence.

¶13

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 5.4.2024. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

BAIL No. 7108 of 2024

¶15

2

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not inform the Court that there is any F.S.L. report of recovered knife so as to connect the applicant with the crime.

¶17

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the post-mortem report, the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 CrPC so also the fact that the case is of circumstantial evidence; the chain of circumstance appears to be incomplete; the applicant has no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 5.4.2024 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant- Manoj involved in Case Crime No. 92 of 2024, under Section- 302 I.P.C., Police Station- Mohammadi, District- Kheri, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

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

¶23

(iv) 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. 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.

¶24

(v) 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 in accordance with law.

¶25

BAIL No. 7108 of 2024

¶26

3

¶27

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the 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 209 of B.N.S.

¶28

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶29

August 25, 2025 Shravan

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manoj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jameel Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Ankit @ Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Smt Sharda Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Sonam Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Matole Alias Mata Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Ankit @ Ramjeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another