Monu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46087

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7242 of 2025

Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.176 of 2025, under Section 108 BNS, P.S. Hujoorpur, District Bahraich.

¶8

In the prosecution case it is alleged that applicant took Rs.30,000/- from the deceased for providing her loan worth Rs.5,00,000/- however, neither the loan was sanctioned nor Rs.30,000/- were refunded to the deceased thus, she committed suicide. In the F.I.R. it is also alleged that applicant administered something in the water to the deceased due to that her limbs stop functioning. The dead body of the deceased was found in the hut of the applicant. Applicant went absconding

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the contents of the F.I.R. are not corroborated by the post mortem report. In the post mortem report, cause of death is hanging, there is no other injury on the body of the deceased. In the post mortem report, no toxic substance was administered to the deceased. He submits that no one has seen the incident. The alleged audio clip and the message therein that applicant administered something in the water of the deceased is falsified by the post mortem report. It is a case of circumstantial evidence, chain of circumstance is not complete.

¶10

It is lastly submitted that even if entire prosecution story is taken as it is that applicant took Rs.30,000/- for providing loan to the applicant, this cannot be a cause for the deceased to end her life. The element of instigation is missing. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 05.07.2025.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶12

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 05.07.2025, applicant has explained the criminal history of six cases in paragraph 27 of the bail application, the finding given in the post mortem report prima facie, the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 108 BNSS are missing and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Monu be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶19

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.

¶20

(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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶21

(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 of the Indian Panel Code (now Section 209 BNS).

¶22

Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Monu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu 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

Shiva Vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Dharmendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nanbabu @ Ram Ubare Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

Abhishek Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nisar Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Mohd. Shadan @ Nadan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow