Rahul Mandal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated on the basis of an alleged false recovery of Rs. 1,22,500/- and two mobile phones from his personal search. It is submitted that there is no public witness to support the alleged recovery. The prosecution alleges that money was withdrawn several times from the complainant's account using his mobile SIM; however, such a story appears highly improbable since, in ordinary circumstances, once a mobile phone is stolen, the associated accounts are usually blocked. Prima facie, it appears that no scientific investigation has been carried out by the investigating officer, nor any effort made to obtain the complainant's bank statement to verify whether any withdrawal actually took place.

¶11

The applicant is in jail since 28.06.2025. The co-accused Santosh Mandal has been granted bail vide order dated 29.10.2025 passed in Bail No.10472 of 2025.

¶12

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

BAIL No. 10370 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶16

Having considered the relevant facts, including the applicant has no criminal history, the co-accused named above has been granted bail, the absence of public witnesses to the alleged recovery, and the fact that the applicant is in custody since 28.06.2025, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶18

Let the applicant Rahul Mandal involved in Case Crime No. 356 of 2025, under Sections- 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 318(2) B.N.S. and Section 66-C, 66D IT Act, Police Station-Kotwali Ayodhya, District-Ayodhya, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

(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 in accordance with law.

¶23

(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 IPC

¶24

BAIL No. 10370 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

(now Section 209 of BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the

¶27

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶28

November 12, 2025

¶29

kkb/

¶30

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Mandal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Mandal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Manmohan @ Mohan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Abhay Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 3 Others

Yogendra Singh @ Jogendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Smt. Neelam Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Maan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.