Rohitdas vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34112 of 2025

Rohitdas

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Mohd Imran Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 70

¶6

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Rohitdas with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.480 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura, during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submitted that in the F.I.R. it has been stated that Rs.9,50,000/- was issued without compliance of proper procedure in this case. The accused-applicant was posted as Manager in the concerned bank at the time of granting aforesaid loan amount. He further submitted that role and involvement of the applicant is said to be conspiratory. Amount of Rs.1,58,922/- has been deposited by the informant in this case. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 31.08.2025. It is submitted that co-accused Surendra Singh has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23858 of 2025. It is further submitted that chargesheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. It is next argued that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of accused applicant fleeing from course of justice or tampering

¶10

BAIL No. 34112 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶13

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; period of detention in jail, keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is allowed.

¶15

Considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶17

(ii) 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.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶19

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in

¶20

BAIL No. 34112 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A I.P.C./209. B.N.S.

¶23

(v) 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./351 B.N.S.S. 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.

¶24

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

¶25

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶26

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶27

November 10, 2025

¶28

Asha

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohitdas v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohitdas 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

Lalai vs State of U.P.

Vakil Nishad vs State of U.P.

Amit Dubey vs State of U.P.

Firoz vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kalariya vs State of U.P.

Deelip Sharma vs State of U.P.