In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to an accused in a murder case while simultaneously taking note of serious lapses by police officials, including the filing of incorrect facts before the Court.
Background of the Case
The bail plea was filed by Manjeet Kumar in connection with a 2025 case registered at Walterganj Police Station in Basti district under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
According to the prosecution, the applicant allegedly harassed the deceased and later abducted her. It was claimed that when she refused marriage, he and others strangulated her and administered poison.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Allows Surrogacy Relief Despite Age Limit, Orders Fast-Track Certificate for Couple
The defence, however, presented a different version. Counsel argued that the two were in a relationship, and both had consumed poison voluntarily. It was suggested that the injuries found could have resulted from an accidental fall. The defence also pointed to a 17-day delay in lodging the FIR and absence of weapon recovery.
Before addressing the bail plea, the Court examined discrepancies in affidavits filed by police officials. It found that incorrect facts had been placed before the Court regarding preparation of case-related comments.
The bench noted that the Superintendent of Police, Basti, Dr Yesh Veer Singh had relied on wrong information and shifted blame onto the prosecution department.
“The filing of incorrect facts on affidavit before the High Court may attract proceedings of criminal contempt,” the Court observed.
Read also:- Uttarakhand HC Orders Bank to Pay ₹25 Lakh Insurance to Deceased Constable’s Family, Calls Denial Arbitrary
However, after the officer tendered an unconditional apology and acknowledged the mistake, the Court chose a lenient approach. Instead of initiating action, it directed the officer to remain present in court for the day as a cautionary measure.
While considering the bail application, the Court evaluated the evidence and circumstances carefully. It noted that there was no direct eyewitness to the alleged incident, except for “last seen” evidence placing the deceased with the applicant.
The Court also took into account:
- Lack of recovery of any weapon
- The admitted relationship between the parties
- The possibility of accidental injury after consuming poison
Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court found that continued custody was not necessary at this stage.
Granting relief, the Court ordered that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation in trial, non-interference with witnesses, and abstaining from criminal activity.
The Court also clarified that any breach of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail.
Case Details
Case Title: Manjeet Kumar vs State of U.P.
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5827 of 2026
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
Decision Date: April 16, 2026
