Manjesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shikar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite parties and perused the record.

¶11

The present bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant in Case Crime No. 0199 of 2025, under Section 137(2), 87 BNS & Section 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station- Maholi, District- Sitapur, against the bail rejection order dated 05.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Sitapur.

¶12

Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

¶13

Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS has denied the incident as alleged in the impugned FIR. The copy of the statement of the victim

¶14

BAIL No. 8437 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

recorded under Section 180 BNSS has been annexed as Annexure No. SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today. He further stated that the victim has also refused to get herself medically examined. The copy of the medical report of the victim has also been annexed as Annexure No. SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that even in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, the victim has denied any incident as alleged in the impugned FIR. The copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 BNSS has been annexed as Annexure No. SA-3 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant who is a student of 20 years is languishing in jail since 06.06.2025 for his no fault, as such, he may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse liberty of bail and shall co-operate in the trial.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. for the State, however, opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is no illegality in the bail rejection order, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail and the bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶19

After hearing the rival submissions of the parties, and having perused the record, without expressing any opinion on merits, I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail Application is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant- Manjesh be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶22

(a) The applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court for hearing;

¶23

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission;

¶24

BAIL No. 8437 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

and

¶27

(c) 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.

¶28

September 4, 2025 (Manoj K.)

¶29

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶30

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

Manjesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Onkar Nath Nigam Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Riyazul Haq and Ors. Vs the State of U.P. and Anr.

Central Government. Empoyees Welfare Housing Organisation Thru. Authority Representive Asif Aqubal vs Rajendra Mohan Saxena

Rahul Dwivedi @ R.D. vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mukesh Sonkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Angad Rajbhar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.