Manoj Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

On a query being put, learned AGA submitted that he has complete instructions in the matter, as such, this Court proceeded to hear the application seeking bail on merits.

¶10

Heard Sri Tribhuvan Narai Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶11

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 624 of 2025, under Sections 105 BNS akin to 304 IPC (now repealed), Police Station-Gola, District-Kheri.

¶12

It is stated that story of the prosecution as narrated in the FIR/Case Crime No. 0624 dated 07.11.2025, Police Station-Gola, District-Kheri, is complete false and concocted and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶13

In continuation it is stated that according to the prosecution case, the deceased was assaulted by the applicant and one unknown person on 27.10.2025, brutally with kicks and fists on account of some financial dispute and he was treated on account of injuries sustained (caused by the applicant and one unknown person) in the private hospital and on 06.11.2025 he was admitted in Community Health Centre (in short 'CHC') at Gola, from where he was referred to District Hospital where deceased died during treatment.

¶14

It is further stated that according the postmortem report, carried out on 07.11.2025, the injury could be sustained to the deceased on 05/06.11.2025. It is for the reason that in the column related to probable time the Autopsy Surgeon indicated "a. Between injury and death - could not be ascertained, b. Between death and postmortem examination- about one day."

¶15

It is further stated that there is no medical evidence available with regard to the fact that deceased was under treatment in a private hospital since 27.10.2025 to 06.11.2025.

¶16

It is further stated that if the story of prosecution is taken on its face value, then the case of the applicant would fall under Section 105 BNS, akin to under Section 304 Part-II IPC, and therefore, at the end of trial the applicant would be entitled for the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶17

It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 17.11.2025 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶19

BAIL No. 12671 of 2025

¶20

2

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including which are related to allegations made in the FIR and postmortem report and keeping in mind the period of incarceration as also as also the chance of conclusion of trial in near future and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶22

Let the applicant- Manoj Verma be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties, out of which one shall be the family member of the accused-applicant, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶26

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶27

(v) 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

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶29

(vii) The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶30

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶31

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶32

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶33

Application is disposed of.

¶34

January 5, 2026 Jyoti/-

¶35

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶36

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

Manoj Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. 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

Similar cases

Yogesh Jaiswal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Higher Education Lko. and 3 Others

Ateequl Rahman vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Ravi Shankar Verma and 23 Others vs Shri Naveen Kumar Pathak Bsa /Dist. Basic Education Officer Barabanki Bsa Officer Barabanki

Dan Bahadur Khan vs Collector Distt. Amethi and 2 Others

Anurag Shukla vs Commercial Court Lko. and 4 Others

Matroo @ Tribhuwan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.