Mohit v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home

Srivastava Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.140 of 2025 under Section 140(1), 103(1), 238(A), 61(2) BNS, Police Station Behta Mujawar, District Unnao.

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 23.05.2025 at about 9:00 p.m., the brother of the informant, Ankit Patel, left home without informing anyone. His mobile phone was found switched off, and consequently, a missing report was lodged. It is further alleged that on 27.05.2025, a dead body was recovered on the basis of information provided by a guard (chaukidar), Mansaram, at the police station, regarding a body found below the Ganga Expressway in the water pipeline.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no eyewitness to the incident. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Except the alleged confessional statement of the co-accused and the recovery of one ATM card belonging to the deceased, there is no other incriminating material against the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no last seen evidence connecting the applicant with the occurrence. He further submits that 2 BAIL No. 7927 of 2025 on the relevant date he was present at Ekana Stadium watching an IPL match, and photographs in this regard are available on record.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and submitted that there are three antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased. The cause of death, as per the post-mortem report, is coma due to antemortem head injury.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

On due consideration to the facts that the confessional statement of the co-accused and the recovery of one ATM card belonging to accused there appears to be no other material against the present applicant; the case is of circumstantial evidence, prima facie chain of circumstances do not appear to be complete; the applicant has no criminal history, the applicant is in jail since 30.5.2025 and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

Let the applicant Mohit be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it 3 BAIL No. 7927 of 2025 shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS). (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS)is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS). August 25, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)