Mohit Moral vs State of U.P.

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Mohit Moral seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.119 of 2025, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 16.9.2025. It is submitted that the present FIR has been registered by the Branch Manager of Bharat Finance Inclusive Ltd., Morna Branch, Muzaffarnagar against applicant and co-accused Kartik Verma, who were working as Field Collection Agent in the aforesaid company with the allegation that they misappropriated Rs.7,73,606/- and Rs.11,73,621/- respectively of the aforesaid company. It is further submitted that role and involvement of applicant is only to collect monthly EMI from the customers of the aforesaid company but he has not misappropriated any amount and no reliable evidence is available on record to show that applicant has received Rs.7,73,606/- from the customers. It is argued that as per FIR the incident had occurred between 22.3.2024 to 18.5.2024, whereas the FIR was registered at a very belated stage on 12.4.2025 for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution. It is further argued that applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is lastly submitted that

¶13

BAIL No. 42689 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

since charge-sheet has already been submitted in this case on 12.11.2025, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677 , dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 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 personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶21

(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 of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

¶22

BAIL No. 42689 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

(v) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly, in accordance with law.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

December 10, 2025 RA

¶28

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohit Moral v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Moral 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

Similar cases

Naveen Singh vs State of U.P.

Jagroshni vs State of U.P.

Najakat vs State of U.P.

Ramkeval vs State of U.P.

Karamjeet Singh vs State of U.P.

Ayan @ Annan vs State of U.P.