Man Mohan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.385 of 2024 under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) B.N.S. and Section 60 Excise Act, Police Station Chirgaon, District Jhansi, the applicant - Man Mohan has filed this application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

¶12

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. He has been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. Applicant is the owner of the liquor shop where it is alleged that liquor was selling by mixing water in it. It is further submitted that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant. He has no criminal antecedents to his credit and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. However, he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that no charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter against the present applicant and investigation is still going on.

¶14

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an

¶15

NABAIL No. 7171 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶18

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶19

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court.

¶20

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶21

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. / 193 (3) B.N.S.S. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

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

¶23

NABAIL No. 7171 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

(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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶26

(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.

¶27

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶28

December 10, 2025 ss

¶29

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Man Mohan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Man Mohan 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

Gaurav Goyal vs State of U.P.

Guddu Sonkar vs State of U.P. and Another

Avanish Pandey vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shyam Surat Patel and Another vs State of U.P.

Ajay Alias Bacchi vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P.