Monpal @ Manpal vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9319 of 2026

¶3

Monpal @ Manpal

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Neelam Srivastava, Satyendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 66

¶7

(Sl. No. 26 out of 150)

¶8

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶9

List has been revised.

¶10

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 399 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 238, 103(1) BNS, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is not named in the FIR. His name has come up subsequently in the statement of the informant, as an afterthought.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that a cctv footage was fetched by the investigating officer, that too, on 8.8.2025 at 00.19.45 to 00.20.51 hours in which one boy is stated to have gone with a girl. The applicant is identified in the said video by the informant but the said video does not match with the incident, as it is of more than one and a half months before the incident, which occurred on 27.9.2025, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶14

BAIL No. 9319 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 4.10.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

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.

¶18

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 the applicant is not named in the FIR and there being no cogent evidence against the him 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 .

¶19

Let the applicant- Monpal @ Manpal, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶20

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

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶26

March 18, 2026 Shalini

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Monpal @ Manpal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monpal @ Manpal 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

Nishant Joshi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Saniya Parveen @ Nisha and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ahmad Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Bhupendra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others