Manish Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned AGA has pointed out that the notice has been served upon the informant/victim.

¶10

This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Hathras in Case Crime No. 169 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87 BNS and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sahpau, District Hathras.

¶11

As per prosecution case, on 08.10.2025, applicant is said to have enticed away the daughter of the informant aged about 17 years with an intention to marry her.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant that perusal of the statements of victim itself shows that the victim was consenting party. It is further stated that victim is major and has herself denied her medical examination. It is further stated that there is delay in lodging of the FIR without any plausible explanation. It is further submitted that appellant is in jail since 29.10.2025 and has no criminal history. It is further submitted that the essential ingredients to constitute offences under the SC/ST Act are also missing.

¶13

CRLA No. 1696 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said fact.

¶16

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶17

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶19

Let the appellant Manish Kumar, involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on 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 appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶21

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶22

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶23

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶24

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶26

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶27

CRLA No. 1696 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before the competent Court.

¶31

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶32

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶33

March 18, 2026 RavindraKSingh

¶34

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Prashant Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Faizan vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Anchala Rani vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Deepak Pandey @ Deepu Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another

Parmod Gupta vs State of Up through Principal Secretary Home Department and 3 Others