Manish Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32896 of 2025

Manish

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manvendra Narain Pathak, Deeksha Gupta, Ram Krishna Paramhans Singh, Siddharth Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 66

¶9

(Sr. No.84 out of 150)

¶10

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶11

List has been revised.

¶12

Heard Sri Manvendra Narain Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶13

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.62 of 2025, under Sections 103(1) BNS, Police Station Mehnaazpur, District Azamgarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The instant case seems to be a case of sudden provocation as the deceased is alleged to have established corporeal relationship with the sister of the applicant. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that it is but obvious that the deceased himself committed lurking house-trespass in night, having entered the house illegally without any authority. Even otherwise, if the prosecution story is considered to be true, the statement of sister of the informant indicates that the fatal injury to the deceased was caused by Avanish Rajbhar, the brother of the applicant, and not the applicant. There are general and omnibus allegations against all the accused persons

¶16

BAIL No. 32896 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

otherwise.

¶19

It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that it is true that the dead body was found in front of the gate of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 5.6.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶20

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

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that it seems to be a case of sudden provocation and the role of causing fatal injury to the deceased has not been assigned to the applicant, 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 .

¶22

Let the applicant- Manish , 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.

¶23

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

¶24

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶25

March 18, 2026 Vikas Verma

¶26

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

Manish v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

Lakshman vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravi Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Nut vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Zunaid vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tinku vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aman vs State of U.P. and 3 Others