Disposed¶14

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Bail – parity with co-accused

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2026BAIL/12359/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12359 of 2026, Allahabad High Court, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J., order dated April 13, 2026. Keywords: bail parity; co-accused Rajneesh granted bail 08.01.2026; contradictory bail orders; Sessions Judge Bareilly (Pradeep Kumar Singh-II) called to explain; CCTV footage pen drive; Gaini Market; FIR; Investigating Officer personal appearance; Registrar (Compliance); listed fresh 29.04.2026; bail merits left open.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the material, the Court is of the view that the material against the present applicant and co-accused Rajneesh is the same, yet bail was allowed for the co-accused and rejected for the applicant on similar material; the merits of the applicant's bail remain undecided, the case being listed fresh. ¶9

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to the applicant where the nature of allegations and material against him are the same as those of co-accused Rajneesh, who has already been granted bail. +2 more

¶8

Court's answer

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Pradeep Kumar Singh-II, District & Sessions Judge, Bareilly is directed to submit an explanation for the contradiction of rejecting one accused's bail and allowing another's despite similar material and role, with reply to be obtained through the Registrar (Compliance) by e-mail before the next date.

¶10

Key takeaways

Learned A.G.A. for the State is directed to produce the pen drive containing CCTV footage, as mentioned in the FIR, recovered from Gaini Market.ratio¶11
On the next date of listing (29.04.2026), the Investigating Officer of the case shall appear personally along with the pen drive containing the CCTV footage recovered during the incident.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — parity with co-accused — contradictory orders of Sessions Judge, Bareilly. The applicant's bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Bareilly (Pradeep Kumar Singh-II) although, on the Court's perusal, the material and role against the applicant were the same as those of co-accused Rajneesh, who had been granted bail by the same court on 08.01.2026. The High Court (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.) did not decide the bail on merits; it directed the District & Sessions Judge, Bareilly to submit an explanation for the contradiction (reply to be obtained through the Registrar (Compliance) by e-mail), directed the learned A.G.A. to produce the pen drive containing CCTV footage recovered from Gaini Market as mentioned in the FIR, and required the Investigating Officer to appear personally with the pen drive on the next date. Bail application listed fresh on 29.04.2026.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12359 of 2026

¶3

Manoj Kumar

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma, Ram Babu Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 67

¶7

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the nature of allegations against the applicant and co-accused Rajneesh are the same, yet bail has been granted to the co-accused Rajneesh by the Sessions Judge, Bareilly on 08.01.2026. However, despite the role of the applicant and the material against him being similar to that of the co-accused, the bail application of the present applicant has been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Bareilly.

¶9

On perusal of the material, this Court is of the view that the material against the present applicant as well as co-accused Rajneesh is the same, but it is surprising that the bail application of the co-accused has been allowed and bail was granted to Rajneesh. However, on similar material, the bail of the present applicant has been rejected by the Sessions Judge, Bareilly (Pradeep Kumar Singh-II).

¶10

Pradeep Kumar Singh-II, District & Sessions Judge, Bareilly is directed to submit an explanation for the above contradiction as to why he rejected the bail of one accused and allowed the same of another, though the material and role are similar.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State is directed to produce the pen drive containing CCTV footage, as mentioned in the FIR, recovered from Gaini Market.

¶12

BAIL No. 12359 of 2026

¶13

¶14

List this case as fresh on 29.04.2026.

¶15

On that date, the Investigating Officer of the case shall appear personally along with the pen drive containing the CCTV footage recovered during the aforesaid incident.

¶16

Let a copy of this order be communicated to Pradeep Kumar SinghII, District & Sessions Judge, Bareilly through the Registrar (Compliance) to obtain his reply by the next date of listing through e- mail.

¶17

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

¶18

April 13, 2026

¶19

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Nishad vs State of U.P.

Vikky Rajbhar vs State of U.P.

Sadaram vs State of U.P.

Riyaz Vs State of U.P.

Mevalal Prajapati vs State of U.P.

Danish Vs State of U.P.