Mohit Rajput vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1845 of 2026

Mohit Rajput

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Yogesh Kumar Mishra, Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, Shraddha Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶9

On a query being put, Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, the learned AGA submitted that he has complete instructions in the matter and is ready to argue the case on merits, as such the Court proceeded to hear the instant application seeking bail on merits.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶11

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 0352/2025, under Sections- 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 64, 123 B.N.S. and Section- 3/4 D.P. Act, Police StationSohramau, District- Unnao.

¶12

While pressing the present application, the learned counsel for the applicant stated that the opposite party No. 2/complainant (in short "prosecutrix/victim") is the real sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the applicant/ Mohit Rajput s/o Gokaran Rajput, as the marriage of prosecutrix/victim was solemnized with real brother namely Ram Gopal s/o Gokaran (coaccused) of the applicant on 17.06.2021.

¶13

It is further stated that out of the wedlock of prosecutrix/victim and Ram Gopal s/o Gokaran (co-accused), three children namely Adarsh (date of birth 23.08.2022), Aryan (date of birth 01.03.2024) and Aastha (date of birth 16.05.2025) were born.

¶14

It is further stated that on account of matrimonial dispute/discord, the prosecutrix/victim, as per FIR, was thrown out of her matrimonial home on 26.07.2025 after being brutally assaulted and abused by Ram Gopal (husband), Gokaran (father-in-law/Sasur), Prema Devi (mother-in-

¶15

BAIL No. 1845 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

law/Sas), Mohit (applicant herein/brother-in-law/Devar), Shohit (brotherin-law/Devar), Sanno (sister-in-law/Nanad) and Jaya (sister-inlaw/Nanad).

¶18

It is further stated that on account matrimonial dispute/discord, the FIR in issue has been lodged by the prosecutrix/victim after taking recourse of Section 173 B.N.S.S. against all the family members, which includes the applicant, against whom the allegations to attract the offence as indicated under Section 64 B.N.S. have also been levelled by the prosecutrix/victim, though same are completely false as there is no medical evidence to corroborate the said allegations.

¶19

It is further stated that a perusal of the FIR would indicate that vague and bald allegations have been levelled against all the family members.

¶20

It is further stated that the case of applicant is covered by various pronouncements rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which includes the judgments rendered in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra and others vs. State of U.P. and others, (2012) 10 SCC 741 ; Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599; Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759 ; Payal Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473; Safiya Bano Alias Shakira and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 222 and Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127.

¶21

It is further submitted that in these circumstances, the present application is liable to be allowed and the applicant may be enlarged on bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses.

¶22

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail, however he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the applicant.

¶23

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R. as also the fact that the applicant has not been previously convicted for any offence and he is in jail since 07.01.2026 and also the chances of conviction of the applicant in the instant case as well as the judgments, referred above, this Court finds that the present applicant is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant- Mohit Rajput be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties (one of family member/close relative) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :-

¶25

BAIL No. 1845 of 2026

¶26

3

¶27

(i) The applicant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶31

(v) 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.

¶32

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶33

(vii) The applicant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶34

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶35

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶36

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this order.

¶37

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶38

March 16, 2026

¶39

Arun/-

¶40

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohit Rajput v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Rajput v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Thru. in Charge Legal Hub Lko. vs Reshma Bano and 7 Others

Lalit Ram Gupta and 2 Others vs the Legal Manager the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Lko. and 2 Others

Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd. 13 Rana Pratap Marg Lko. Vs Anita Devi and 4 Ors.

Shivam Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt Lko.

Jwala Prasad vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Others

Kaushal Kishor vs Gyanendra Kumar, Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Deptt. Barabanki and 2 Others