Pintu Alias Ram Mohan Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90166

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17289 of 2025

Applicant :- Pintu Alias Ram Mohan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nasira Adil Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Ms. Nasira Adil, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 162 of 2024, under Sections 85, 103(1), 238, 3(5) of BNS, Police Station - Sahayal, District - Auraiya, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up later on in the statement of co-accused persons. Learned counsel has fairly conceded the fact that the role of the applicant has been assigned of having strangulated the deceased person with a rope in the statement of Ashi, daughter of the deceased person recorded u/s 183 BNSS. It is argued that the daughter of the deceased person Ashi in her statement recorded u/s 180 BNSS has not assigned any role to the applicant, as such, her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS seems to be a tutored one.

¶10

Learned counsel has further submitted that the named accused person, Surendra Yadav and two other co-accused persons, Sanju Yadav and Sunil Yadav, who are not named in the FIR, have already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 10.04.2025, 02.05.2025 and 13.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.8527 of 2025, 3985 of 2025 and 14049 of 2025, respectively. Since the case of the applicant is at par to the co-accused persons, who have already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶11

Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. He is merely a friend of the co-accused Lavesh Yadav, as such, has been falsely implicated in the case. The recovery of alleged rope is stated to have been made at the pointing out of the applicant. He is languishing in jail since 21.12.2024, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶12

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. on the ground that there is recovery of alleged rope at the pointing out of the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. However, the aforesaid factual aspects of parity to the co-accused and of no criminal history of the applicant, have not been disputed by him.

¶13

In the case of Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. AIR 2022 SC 5661, the Supreme Court held that the confession of an accused before a police officer is inadmissible, being hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act. Though, information furnished to I.O. leading to discovery of place of offence would be admissible to extent indicated in Section 27 read with Section 8 of Act, but not entire disclosure statement in nature of confession recorded by Police officer.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in the light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Rahul (supra) , without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity. However, the only difference in the case of the applicant is that a rope has been recovered at his pointing out.

¶16

Let the applicant- Pintu Alias Ram Mohan , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions.

¶17

Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶18

i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Order Date:- 27.5.2025

¶23

Siddhant

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pintu Alias Ram Mohan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Alias Ram Mohan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases