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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of applicant Manish Kumar Yadav on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required; breach of conditions to entail cancellation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arraigned in Case Crime No. 213 of 2024 under Sections 64, 332(b), 352, 351(3) of BNS (P.S. Manduadeeh, District Varanasi), is entitled to release on bail during the pendency of trial, in view of the delay of about 25 days in lodging the FIR, his incarceration since 05.10.2024 exceeding one and a half years, and the fact that not a single witness has been examined. +1 more

Court's answer

Bail application allowed: the Court found it a fit case to release the applicant on bail, considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, nature of offence, severity of punishment, the Supreme Court's judgment in Prabhakar Tewari, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the glacial pace of trial with no witness examined to date.

Ratio / Principle

Applicant Manish Kumar Yadav to 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 conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.

Key takeaways

Breach of any bail condition shall entail cancellation of bail, and the observations in the order shall not affect the trial on merits.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Second bail application under Sections 64, 332(b), 352, 351(3) of BNS, Case Crime No. 213 of 2024, P.S. Manduadeeh, District Varanasi — First bail application rejected 7.1.2025 in C.M.B.A. No. 42757 of 2024 — Applicant in jail since 05.10.2024, incarceration over one and a half years — FIR lodged after delay of about 25 days without proper explanation — No witness examined; trial at glacial pace — Criminal history stated to be explained — Reliance on Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., (2020) 11 SCC 648 (pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail) — Bail application allowed; release on personal bond and two sureties subject to verification, with conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses and to appear before the trial court — Breach of conditions to entail cancellation; observations not to affect trial on merits. (Krishan Pahal, J.)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38543 of 2025

Manish Kumar Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Om Prakash Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 65

(Sl. No. 161 out of 277)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

List has been revised. This is the second bail application. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 7.1.2025 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 42757 of 2024.

Heard Sri Om Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 213 of 2024, under Sections 64, 332(b), 352, 351(3) of BNS, Police Station - Manduadeeh, District - Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.

As a new ground, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the trial has made no progress as not a single witness has been examined. The applicant is in jail since 05.10.2024, as such, the period of incarceration is more than one and a half year. Even otherwise, the FIR has been instituted after a delay of about 25 days without giving proper explanation of such delay caused. Criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

BAIL No. 38543 of 2025

2

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment, the aforesaid judgement of Supreme Court and also considering the delay in lodging the FIR and the glacial pace of trial as no witness has been examined to date, prima facie I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed .

Let the applicant- Manish Kumar Yadav , 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.

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

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

April 20, 2026 Siddhant

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad