Manish Tiwari @ Monu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9905 of 2026

Manish Tiwari @ Monu

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Dharam Raj Tripathi, Pankaj Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 64

¶6

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶7

Learned AGA submits that notice of the present application has been served on the opposite party no.2-informant and opposite party no.4-Child Welfare Committee on 28.03.2026. Receiving endorsements produced by learned AGA, are taken on record. However, no one appears on their behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Archna Yadav, counsel for the opposite party no.3 and Sri N.K.Sharma, learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 382 of 2025, under Section 75(1)(i) BNS and Section 9m/10 POCSO Act, Police Station Jigna, District Mirzapur during the pendency of trial.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant did not act inappropriately with the victim. The informant refused to get the victim medically examined. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Investigation has been completed. Charge sheet has been filed. The applicant is in jail since 22.12.2025 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

BAIL No. 9905 of 2026

2

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the informant refused to get the victim medically examined. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost four months and after submission of charge sheet, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant Manish Tiwari @ Monu involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he: