Manish Madhesiya Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15338 of 2026

Manish Madhesiya

	Versus		...	..Appli	cant(s)
State of U.P.				.....O P	pposite arty(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Vikas Tripath	Yadav, i	Vishves	hwar	Mani
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Chowd	Prashant hury	Pratap	Rao,	Rajiv

¶5

Court No. - 65

¶6

(Sr. No.48 out of 259)

¶7

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶8

List has been revised.

¶9

Heard Sri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Pratap Rao, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.100 of 2026, under Sections 64(1), 123, 351(2) BNS, Police Station Badhalganj, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is major aged about 22 years and she seems to be a consenting party as there is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no sign of struggle by the victim.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that even the statement of neighbour of the victim indicates that the victim has instituted the FIR to coerce the applicant into marrying her, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 17.3.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

BAIL No. 15338 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR coupled by the fact that victim seems to be a consenting party and there being no medical corroboration of the incident and also there being no sign of any struggle by the victim, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Manish Madhesiya , be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

¶18

Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

¶19

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶20

May 6, 2026

¶21

Vikas Verma

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish Madhesiya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Madhesiya v. State of U.P.

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

Anup Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Usman Vs State of U.P.

Kusum Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Govind @ Akash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pushpendra Dev @ Talli vs State of U.P. and 3 Others