HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33119 of 2026 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. 3. This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ratan Mandal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 97 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 427, 506, 354, 394, 452, 308, 302 and 34 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Sachendi, District- Kanpur Nagar. 4. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40572 of 2024 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that trial in the present matter has started in which as per charge sheet 33 witnesses have to be examined, para 26 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court for the same. It is further submitted that as of now 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined only and thus trial will take time. It is submitted that from perusal of the statements of the alleged eye witnesses as recorded before the trial court it would surface that the present incident was committed by 10-15 persons. It is submitted that thus the prosecution Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ratan Mandal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) case as per F.I.R. of all three persons including the applicant being involved in the present matter is false and incorrect. It is submitted that as of now testimony of the Investigating Officer is going on. It is further submitted that out of 10 prosecution witnesses examined, 9 were the witnesses of fact and thus there are no chances of the applicant now tempering with evidence since witnesses of fact have been examined before the trial court. It is submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history as stated in para-46 of the affidavit and he is in jail since 18.3.2023. It is prayed that the applicant be released on bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court by a detailed order on merits on 28.11.2024. It is submitted that trial is at an advanced stage as 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court. It is submitted that 9 witnesses of fact as examined before the trial court, have supported the prosecution case and in so far as the applicant is concerned he was named in the F.I.R. and is also named by the said 9 witnesses and as such there is no change in circumstances in the present matter. It is submitted that therefore there is no fresh and new ground in the matter and as such the same be dismissed. 7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order daed 28.11.2024 on merits. The same reads as under:- "1. Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record. 2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Ratan Mandal, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 97 of 2023, under sections 147, 323, 504, 427, 506, 354, 394, 452, 308, 302 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar. 3. Initially a Non Cognizable Report was lodged on 08.03.2023 under Sections 323, 504 IPC by Kamal Kishor Mishra against Ratan Mandal, Siddharth Mandal and Rajat @ Jatan Mandal alleging therein that on 08.03.2023 at about 01:00 am the accused persons entered inside the house and started abusing him. On stopping them, they assaulted him, his maternal uncle Amit Kumar Dwivedi, his mother Mithlesh Mishra and Devendra Mishra with lathi and danda who have received injuries. His vehicle has also been BAIL No. 33119 of 2026 2 damaged after which the said Non Cognizable Report was converted into a regular First Information Report under Sections 308, 323, 504, 427 IPC on 10.08.2023 and subsequently Amit Kumar Dwivedi died on 13.03.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the injured Kamal Kishore Mishra was found to have made a complaint of three injuries on him but the doctor did not find any injury marks on it. It is argued that the other alleged injured Mithlesh Kumar was found to have received one injury and the doctor opined that there is no external injury seen on all of the parts of body and the said injury was opined to be simple in nature. It is further submitted that Devendra Kumar was found to have received some injuries and there was a multiple fracture of the nasal bone as per the CT scan. It is argued that after investigation as many as nine persons are accused including the applicant. It is submitted that common and general role has been assigned to all the accused persons. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. It is further submitted that co-accused Tapan Mandal and Rohit Mandal have been granted bail vide order dated 26.04.2024 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 43725 of 2023 (Tapan Mandal and 2 others Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order is annexed as annexure 20 of the affidavit. Further, co-accused Prabhat Barkandas has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 40288 of 2023 (Prabhat Barkandas Vs. State of U.P.), copy of the order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 43 of the affidavit and is in jail since 18.03.2023. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the FIR. It is submitted that co-accused Tapan Mandal, Rohit Mandal and Prabhat Barkandas who have been granted bail by this Court, were not named in the FIR. It is further submitted that the bail of co-accused Rajat Mandal @ Jatan Mandal an accused named in the FIR who was the applicant no.2 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 43725 of 2023 (Tapan Mandal and 2 others Vs. State of U.P.) has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2024 by which two co-accused namely Tapan Mandal/applicant no.1 and Rohit Mandal/applicant no.3 have been granted bail. It is submitted that the case of the applicant is distinguishable with that of three co-accused persons who have been granted bail. It is submitted that as such the bail of the applicant be rejected. 6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the FIR along with two other co-accused persons. His case stands on a different footing with that of co-accused who have been granted bail and were not named in the FIR. There are specific allegations against the applicant. The bail of identically placed co-accused Rajat Mandal @ Jatan Mandal has been rejected by this Court. I do not find it a fit case for bail. 7. Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected." BAIL No. 33119 of 2026 3 8. This is the second bail application. Trial in the present matter is an advanced stage in which 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined as per para-26 of the affidavit in support of this bail application. Examination of the Investigating Officer is going on as per learned counsel for the applicant. 9 witnesses of fact have supported the prosecution case. In so far as the applicant is concerned, he was named in the F.I.R. and is also named in the statements of the said 9 witnesses recorded before the trial court. There is no new and fresh ground made in the present matter. The trial is at an advanced stage. 9. In view of the matter, no case for bail is made out. Accordingly, this second bail application is rejected. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. September 29, 2026 Naresh BAIL No. 33119 of 2026 4 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad