Shiv Mangal vs State Of U.P.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Babu, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 657 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 316(5), 61(2), 238 B.N.S., and Section 66(D) I.T. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Karvi, District- Chitrakoot during pendency of the trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is aged about 72 years and retired as an Assistant Teacher from Junior High School Lodhiya Chitrakoot. He is receiving regular pension. An excess amount of Rs.5,37,408/- was inadvertently credited to the pension account of the applicant and, the said amount has been duly returned by him. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon a certificate dated 4.4.2026 issued by Senior Treasury Officer, Chitrakoot. It is contended that the applicant has neither forged nor fabricated any documents. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Balwant Singh, Mahipal and Natthu Ram have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 13.1.2026, 24.2.2026 and 24.3.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 44157 of 2025, 42759 of 2025 and 9868 of 2026 respectively. The applicant is in jail since 24.2.2026 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the excess amount credited to the pension account of the applicant has duly been returned. Identically placed co-accused Balwant Singh, Mahipal and Natthu Ram have been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than two months and 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 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.

6. Let the applicant, Shiv Mangal involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

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

S.S.