Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 420 of 2026

Manoj Kumar

.....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shashank Kumar, Prashant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 11

¶6

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 79 of 2021 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC/B.N.S., Police Station- Ghazipur, District- Lucknow.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and his involvement was shown by the Investigating Agency during investigation. He further submits that other similarly situated persons namely, Mussaraf, Jafar Ali, Arvind Kumar Chaurasiya, Mohd. Nadeem Khan, Abhishek Kumar Agarwal, Ankit Kumar Agarwal, Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary, Mohan Singh, Abhishek Saxena, Vikram Singh, Akash Kumar Ray, Sandeep Singh and Dhruv Raj Singh have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 15.05.2025, 5.8.2024, 29.2.2024, 6.8.2024, 2.9.2024, 5.9.2024, 1.10.2024, 12.11.2024, 22.7.2024, 22.10.2024, 22.10.2024, 24.10.2024 and 3.1.2025 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. numbered - 520 of 2025, 1737 of 2024, 424 of 2024, 1746 of 2024, 1992 of 2024, 2042 of 2024, 2265 of 2024, 2506 of 2024, 1600 of 2024, 2494 of 2024, 2495 of 2024, 2430 of 2024 and 2792 of 2024 respectively. He also submits that the applicant is ready to cooperate in the

¶10

ABAIL No. 420 of 2026

¶11

2

¶12

investigation and except the present case, he does not have any criminal antecedent, hence, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that involvement of the applicant was found by the Investigating Officer but he does not dispute the fact that in the identical circumstances, other persons have already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the F.I.R. as well as other relevant materials, including the fact that other persons have already been enlarged on bail, therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Manoj Kumar be released on interim bail in the aforesaid case. In case the applicant is taken into custody by Investigating Officer/Investigating Agency, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail after taking personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

(ii) 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.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

With above directions, the anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶20

June 9, 2026 Harshita

¶21

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶22

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

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

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

Similar cases

Taufiq Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajit Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rinku @ Rahul @ Haiden vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shubham Shukla @ Dhoni Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ram Tej Yadav Alias Rinku Yadav vs State of U.P through Principal Secretary Home

Suraj Raidas vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.