Mohit Pawar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:17834

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 514 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohit Pawar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Kumar,Shyam Babu,Vinay Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party no. 1, and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 304 of 2024, under Sections 340(2), 319(2), 309(4), 338, 336(2), 205, 329(4), 61(2), 3(5), 111(3) B.N.S., Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is owner of the Swift Dezire car, bearing registration no. DL 12 CJ 6024. The said vehicle was taken on rent by other co-accused. In the alleged CCTV footage the applicant was seen sitting at the driver seat. No overact has been assigned to him. It is next contended that other co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 27.11.2024, 16.12.2024, 15.01.2025, 10.01.2025, 15.01.2025, 17.01.2025, 06.01.2025, 07.01.2025, 08.01.2025 and 08.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 42507 of 2024 (Jitesh Khandelwal v. State of U.P.), 44894 of 2024 (Amit Chaudhary v. State of U.P.), 1005 of 2025 (Naresh Sharma v. State of U.P.), 875 of 2025 (Devesh Sharma v. State of U.P.), 1114 of 2025 (Ankur Chaudhary v. State of U.P.), 664 of 2025 (Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P.), 46478 of 2024 (Yogesh Kumar v. State of U.P.), 43730 of 2024 (Devendra Kumar Sehrawat v. State of U.P.), 254 of 2025 (Sagar Verma alias Hani v. State of U.P.) and 406 of 2025 (Govind Sharma v. State of U.P.) respectively. The case of the applicant is on better footing than that of co-accused persons. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is next submitted that

¶9

the investigation is going on and the applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case.

¶10

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

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the application for grant of anticipatory bail be confined only till the submission of police report.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant and, in particular, the fact that the applicant was not named in the first information report, in the CCTV footage the applicant was seen sitting at the driver's seat of Swift Dezire vehicle, no overact has been assigned to him, and coaccused persons have been granted bail by this Court, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant- Mohit Pawar be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 193(3) B.N.S.S., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the

¶19

investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶20

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶21

The application stands disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 SKT/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohit Pawar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Pawar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Anju Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P.

Gufran Khan vs State of U.P.

Krisna Pal and Another vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep vs State of U.P. and Another

Kevla Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Shubham Kuamr vs State of U.P. and 3 Others