Mohit Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26804 of 2025

Versus Mohit		.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	Mohd. G.A.	Kamar Shah Alam

¶3

Court No. - 64

¶4

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.217 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, Police Station Noorpur, District Bijnor during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant was disclosed in the statement of the informant under Section 180 B.N.S.S. The applicant is an agent of Jana Small Finance Bank, Branch Mahadeva, Chandpur, District Bijnor. As per the post- mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death could not be ascertained. The viscera was sent for chemical analysis. It is contended that viscera report is still awaited. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by

¶8

BAIL No. 26804 of 2025

¶9

2

¶10

the deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2025, dated 17.01.2025, and Laxmi Das v. The State of West Bengal and others, Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2017, dated 21.01.2025 . The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 29.06.2025 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report; the name of the applicant was disclosed in the statement of the informant under Section 180 B.N.S.S.; as per the post- mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death could not be ascertained and the viscera was sent for chemical analysis; and, as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 108 B.N.S. are not made out. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant-Mohit, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court

¶14

BAIL No. 26804 of 2025

¶15

3

¶16

concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶17