Allowed

Manoj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2025BAIL/8642/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of Manoj accused of assault resulting in death. Finding prima facie evidence of over-implication and injures sustained by the applicant's side, the Court granted bail with sureties without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

Manoj vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36628

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8642 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Heard Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 269 of 2024, under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 324(4), 351(3), 127(2), 103(1) BNS, Police Station Barsathi, District Jaunpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged on 27.9.2024 against the applicant and 13 others and according to the FIR on 26.9.2024 at about 5 pm in the evening, a religious function was being held in the house of the accused persons and in that religious ceremony when informant and her husband (brother of the applicant) tried to participate then applicant and other accused persons including his father made assault upon them and thereafter when information was given to the police then police has taken the husband of the informant i.e brother of the applicant to the hospital where he has been declared dead.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is brother of the deceased but on the basis of false allegations, he has been made accused in the present matter alongwith his entire family members even including his father.

¶11

He further submitted that in the FIR and in the first statement informant made only general allegations against all the 14 accused persons but when after about one month her second statement was recorded then she tried to distinguish the case of applicant and his

¶12

brothers with others and attributed the specific role of causing injury to the deceased to them.

¶13

He further submitted that as second statement of informant was recorded after about a month, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such version.

¶14

He further submitted that actually when informant and her husband tried to participate in the religious function in spite of the fact that they were not invited then dispute arose between informant side & applicant side and during dispute, deceased and applicant side both sustained injuries but unfortunately, deceased succumbed to his injuries.

¶15

He further submitted that from the side of the applicant also applicant and his brother sustained injuries and their injury reports have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application.

¶16

He further submitted that however, from the post mortem report, it reflects that deceased sustained as many as six injuries but except injury Nos. 1 and 2, all the other injuries were on non vital parts.

¶17

He further submitted that co-accused Kailashnath Shukla i.e father of the applicant and deceased has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 5.2.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 2755 of 2025 and considering the allegations levelled in the FIR and the first statement of the informant, case of applicant is at par with him.

¶18

He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 4.10.2024.

¶19

Per contra, learned AGA, however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶21

However, applicant is brother of the deceased and as per allegation, he alongwith as many as 13 persons made assault upon the deceased due to which he died but considering the fact that in the FIR and in the first statement of the informant, recorded during investigation only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused including applicant, the present case, prima facie,

¶22

appears to be a case of over implication.

¶23

Further, however, after about one month when second statement of the informant was recorded during investigation then she tried to distinguish the role of the applicant and his other brothers with others but considering the fact that her second statement was recorded after about one month, argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that no reliance can be placed on her second statement, cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

¶24

Further, record also suggests that from the side of the applicant also including applicant, two persons sustained injuries and on their application moved under section 175 (3) BNS, an order has also been passed for lodgement of the FIR against the informant side.

¶25

Be that as it may, considering the nature of allegation levelled against the applicant and facts of the case including the fact that from the side of the applicant including applicant, two persons sustained injuries, submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that actually when informant and her husband arrived at the house of the applicant without any invitation then dispute arose and during quarrel, applicant and his one another brother and deceased sustained injuries cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

¶26

Further, co-accused Kailashnath Shukla, has already been released on bail by this Court and he is the father of the deceased and considering the allegations made in the FIR and in the first statement of the informant, it appears, case of applicant is at par with him as far as incident of assault is concerned.

¶27

Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 4.10.2024.

¶28

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶29

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶30

Let the applicant- Manoj, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶31

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶32

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

¶33

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶34

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶35

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶36

Order Date :- 12.3.2025

¶37

Ankita

¶38

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akash vs State of U.P.

Mohd Irfan vs State of U.P.

Atul vs State of U.P.

Rajeev Alias Ramu vs State of U.P.

Shashikala vs State of U.P.

Radheshyam Pasi vs State of U.P.