Mohanlal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47552

Court No. - 4

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5276 of 2024

Applicant :- Mohanlal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Dwivedi,Uday Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the rejoinder affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

¶8

3. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Mohan Lal) is languishing in jail since 19.03.2024 in Case Crime No.71 of 2024, under Sections 147, 323, 306, 354Ga IPC, Police Station-Fatehpur Chaurasi, District- Unnao.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards impugned FIR, wherein the specific allegation of committing rape has been levelled against accused No.1, Rohit Nishad, however, against remaining accused persons including the present applicant, the allegation has been levelled that they had beaten the victim and clicked their obscene video.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the victim has committed suicide and as per postmortem report, there is no ante-mortem injury, therefore, the story of beating the victim has been nullified. Further, no evidence of clicking obscene video has been found, therefore, no charge-sheet has been filed under I.T. Act. Learned counsel has reiterated that in the present case, the main accused is Rohit Nishad. Learned counsel has further submitted that the co-accused persons namely, Chhotu @ Amit, Vijay Kumar @ Kishori, Ramvilash and Vinod Kumar, who have been assigned similar role, have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2024, 19.06.2024, 31.05.2024 and 01.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5827 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Bail Application

¶11

No. 6419 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5957 of 2024 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6754 of 2024 respectively, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. There is no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Therefore, if the present is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly.

¶12

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since involvement of the present applicant has been found in the commission of crime, therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

7. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of F.I.R. and fact that the co-accused persons namely, Ramvilash, Chhotu @ Amit, Vijay Kumar @ Kishori and Vinod Kumar, who have been assigned the similar role, have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.5.2024, 31.05.2024, 19.06.2024 and 01.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5957 of 2024, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5827 of 2024 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6419 of 2024 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6754 of 2024, there is no criminal history of the applicant, the undertaking that the present applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order and shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly as well as by following the principle of parity, I am of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail in this case.

¶14

8. Let applicant (Mohan Lal) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) 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 shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(ii) 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 Indian Penal

¶17

Code.

¶18

(iii) 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. 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 Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

(v)The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶21

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 12.7.2024 Suresh/

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohanlal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanlal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Girish Chandra Sonkar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Trade Tax Lko and 3 Others

Rampal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Dileep Kumar Singh and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Kailash Chandra Baranwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and 3 Others

Gaurav Mishra Vs Union of India Thru. Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow

Ratnakar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko. and Others