Monu @ Manmohan vs State Of U.P.
- Neutral2026:AHC:104514
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a bail application is filed during trial and the court finds: (1) the FIR was lodged belatedly; (2) prima facie the evidence does not sufficiently link the applicant to the offence, as demonstrated by absence of corroborative evidence, inconsistencies in the prosecution's case (such as missing medical documents despite postmortem findings, and video footage not showing the deceased at the alleged place of occurrence); (3) the applicant has no criminal antecedents; (4) the applicant has been in custody for a substantial period; (5) there is no reasonable apprehension that the applicant would tamper with evidence, delay the trial, or intimidate witnesses; then the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail, and such bail shall be granted subject to furnishing personal bond and sureties and compliance with conditions imposed by the court.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.
2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 115 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 105, 3(5), 191(2) B.N.S., Police Station Najibabad, District Bijnor during the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 09.03.2026. As per the first information report, the applicant along with two accused is alleged to have assaulted the informant, his father Rampal and his two brothers Lalit and Monu. The injured Lalit and Monu were medically examined on 09.03.2026 at 10.15 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. respectively at CHC, Najibabad, Bijnor. The injuries sustained by them were found to be simple in nature. The first information report was subsequently lodged on 13.03.2026 under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 B.N.S. The father of the informant died on 14.03.2026. Thereafter Sections 105, 3(5) and 191(2) B.N.S. were added. The postmortem examination was conducted on 15.03.2026. As per the postmortem report, the following injuries were recorded: "Injury No. 1, Stitched wound of size 7 cm with 10 stitches present at mid line of cranium slightly toward Rt. side, 8 cm. above from base of nose, fracture of parietal bone and Rt temporal bone. Injury No. 2, Abraded contusion 15 cm x 4 cm. present at Lt. forearm, fracture of radius and ulna." According to the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is cranio cerebral damage due to ante mortem head injury. It is contended that no medical examination report of the deceased prior to his death, is available in the case diary. The stitched wound mentioned in the postmortem report clearly indicates that there was medical intervention prior to his death. However, no such treatment papers or medical documents have been collected or produced by the prosecution. It is next contended that as per three video footage of the alleged incident, the deceased is not seen present at the place of occurrence. It is argued that the deceased had sustained injuries elsewhere and was not in the present incident. The applicant is in jail since 28.03.2026 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report was lodged belatedly. The stitched wound mentioned in the postmortem report clearly indicates that there was medical intervention prior to his death. However, no such treatment papers or medical documents have been collected or produced by the prosecution. As per three video footage of the alleged incident, the deceased is not seen present at the place of occurrence. 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 more than a month and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and 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, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant- Monu @ Manmohan, 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 Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
May 6, 2026
SKT/-
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