Manish Maurya vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 12939 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Manish Maurya vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 24 November, 2025

Author: Krishan Pahal

Bench: Krishan Pahal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:209540
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39186 of 2025   
 
   Manish Maurya    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Deepesh Kumar Ojha, Sharad Yadav, Suneel Kumar Yadav   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 67
 
   
 
 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.      

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.62 of 2022, under Sections 376AB, 377 I.P.C. and 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 31.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.26463 of 2022 and the following order was passed:-

"1. List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of applicant to press the instant bail application. Learned A.G.A. for the State are present. Under the circumstances, I myself have perused the record.

2. The instant bail application was filed on 17.06.2022 and none was present on behalf of the applicant to press it on 15.2.2023, 23.03.2023, 02.05.2023, 31.07.2023, 24.10.2024, 01.07.2025 and so is the case today, despite there are five counsels engaged on the behalf of the applicant.

3. It is observed by this Court that advocates are not appearing in majority of listed cases that too on multiple dates. Non-appearance of the counsel for the applicant amounts to professional misconduct. It also tantamount to bench hunting or forum shopping.

4. The Supreme Court in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612 has categorically held that courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. It was also opined that the courts have to be diligent and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law.

5. Mere pendency of the bail application cannot accrue any right in favour of the applicant. It cannot be allowed to swing years together in the cloak of pendency. The applicant cannot be permitted to dilute the stream of justice by repeatedly remaining absent from judicial proceedings without any reasonable explanation. Absence of any reason for non-appearance is blatant abuse of process of law, even though the order is available on the website of the High Court.

6. The resources of the Court which includes precious judicial time are scarce and already stretched beyond elastic limits. Valuable Court time, which is required to be engaged in adjudication of serious judicial action, is wasted on frivolous and vexatious litigation which is misconceived and is an abuse of the process of law. A judicial system has less than sufficient resources to afford justice without unreasonable delay to those having genuine grievances. Therefore, increasingly, the Courts have held that totally unjustified use of judicial time must be curbed and the party so wasting precious judicial resources, must be required to compensate not only the adversary but also the judicial system itself.

7. A Division Bench of this Court in Ashwani Kumar Srivastava v. D. Sen Gupta Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bombay, 2008 SCC OnLine All 723 has categorically expressed in para-22: "22. ???? Learned Advocates being officers of the Court owe a duty not only to the Court but to their clients also in getting the cases decided expeditiously so as to achieve the objective of dispensation of justice. The time of the Court is precious for the reason that it is public's time and must be utilised for adjudicating matters which have substance and need to be decided at the earliest. The arm of justice must reach the aggrieved person dispensing justice speedily. If time of the Court is consumed, and that too, a lion's share, by frivolous and bogus litigation, it is bound to take away the time which could have been utilised for really needy litigants. The time has come when the learned members of the Bar should rise to the occasion and discourage frivolous and bogus litigation by telling their clients that they would not be a party to such kind of litigation. Frivolous litigation only adds burden on the Court and deprives real litigants from the shower of justice at a time when he really needs it. Needless to say, it would be healthier for institution in particular and public at large and this pious institution would be able to achieve its constitutional obligation of dispensation of justice in deserving cases with greater pace."

8. It appears that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the matter. Therefore, by the efflux of time, it seems to have been rendered infructuous. The bail once granted cannot be cancelled at the drop of pen, there must be clinching evidence of its misuse or some other concealment of fact.

9. There are several instances where a person granted bail may have the bail cancelled. They are: (i) Where the person during the period of bail, commits the very same offence for which he is being tried or has been convicted, and thereby proves utterly unfit, to be on bail. (ii) If he hampers the investigation; (iii) If he tampers with the evidence, as by intimidating the prosecution witnesses, interfering with the scene of offence to remove traces or proofs of the crime, etc.; (iv) If he runs away to a foreign country, or goes underground, or beyond the control of his sureties; (v) If he commits acts of violence, in revenge, against the police and the prosecution witnesses and those who have booked him or are trying to book him; (vi) The earlier order was illegal and perverse therefore must be set aside; and (vii) The said order was taken by suppressing relevant facts.

10. The instant case does not fall under the any of the aforesaid categories.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court declines to entertain this bail application. The application is, accordingly, rejected.

12. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Court/authority for necessary information and compliance, forthwith."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is contradictory to the medical report. PW-1 has wrongly deposed against the applicant. It is a clear-cut case of false implication. Only five witnesses have been examined to date, as such, the applicant is entitled for bail. He is in jail since 02.03.2022 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the medical report corroborates the allegations of sexual assault and the victim is about three years old and of a very tender age, as such, the applicant is not entitled to bail.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the age of the victim and the injuries sustained by her in vital part of the body, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

November 24, 2025

(Ravi Kant)