Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89870 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12046 of 2025 Applicant :- Manish Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Girja Shanker Mishra,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Kumar Yadav,Dhiraj Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Supplementary counter affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the informant is taken on record. Heard Sri N. I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sadrul Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhiraj Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned AGA for the State-Respondent and perused the record. The present bail application has been moved on behalf of accused- applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 75A of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Gyanpur, District Bhadohi. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused- applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case crime number. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR in this case was lodged in the year 2011. According to the FIR, the accused-applicant along with other accused allegedly attacked the informant's husband namely Udaybhan Singh with Rifle when he was going from the Court to the District Jail in police custody. The police had submitted a final report in this case, according to which no such incident was found to have taken place. He further submits that no technical inspection of the vehicle was done, in which the informant's husband was being taken back to the District Jail Mirzapur after appearing in the Court. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that no one was injured in the aforesaid incident. Later on, due to political reasons, the informant got this case reopened by submitting a protest petition in the year 2024, almost fourteen years after the incident. On the protest petition, the Magistrate had ordered further investigation. The applicant has criminal antecedents of 24 cases to his credit and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, the bail has been prayed for. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail by stating that after lodging of the FIR the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the informant but the statement of the driver of the informant and other eyewitnesses have been written falsely under the pressured and influence of the accused-applicant and the ruling party MLA, sitting in the police station without any interrogation. Even the statement of the eyewitnesses were not taken properly. Whatever is available on the case diary has been recorded falsely under the pressure and influence. No such statement has been given by the witnesses. On 03.07.2011, the Investigating Officer of the above case after inspecting the spot, taking the map, statements of all the witnesses and completing all the formalities, sent the final report in the above case on 03.07.2011 itself. Learned AGA further submits that in such a serious and sensitive case, the Investigation Officer in order to save the accused-applicant, ruling party MLA and his associates, under the pressure, influence and temptation completed all the proceeding in a single day and sent the final report, which is very condemnable and regrettable. As such, the learned Magistrate has rightly ordered for further investigation. He further submits that the accused-applicant is a man of criminal antecedents and he is not entitled for any relief. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima-facie, the involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence. In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad