Manish Madhesiya vs State Of U.P.
- Neutral2026:AHC:104094
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
In a bail application under criminal procedure, where the facts reveal: (i) delay in the institution of the FIR; (ii) evidence suggesting the victim was a consenting party; (iii) absence of medical corroboration of the alleged incident; and (iv) absence of signs of struggle by the victim, the court may grant bail to the accused on the ground that a prima facie case for bail has been made out, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the trial. Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties, subject to verification, with conditions that the accused shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required; breach of any such condition shall entail cancellation of bail.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. Heard Sri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Pratap Rao, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.100 of 2026, under Sections 64(1), 123, 351(2) BNS, Police Station Badhalganj, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The victim is major aged about 22 years and she seems to be a consenting party as there is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no sign of struggle by the victim.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that even the statement of neighbour of the victim indicates that the victim has instituted the FIR to coerce the applicant into marrying her, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 17.3.2026. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR coupled by the fact that victim seems to be a consenting party and there being no medical corroboration of the incident and also there being no sign of any struggle by the victim, 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.
8. Let the applicant- Manish Madhesiya, 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.
9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Vikas Verma
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free