BUNTY MANDAL AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO
/9536/2025 · 2025-10-13
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 203662 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 203662 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9536 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that by selling the mobile phone of the complainant, his sim has been used by the applicants, forged UPI ID has been created and money has been transacted several times online using PhonePe and Google Pay apps. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and they are not a previous convict nor they have any previous criminal history. On the basis of the present case, seven more cases have been slapped upon them. He further submits that no material has been collected from the possession of the applicants by the Investigating Officer and no online transaction has been found to have been made by the applicants. 4. It is further submitted that the there is no possibility of the applicants fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is recovery of one lakh rupees from the applicants, however, there is no public witness to the said recovery. 6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, looking into the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations levelled against the applicants, as also the fact that there is no independent witness of the said recovery; also considering the fact that the applicants have been languishing in jail since 28.06.2025, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pravin Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Bunty Mandal And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko .....Opposite Party(s)
the applicants. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8.
Let the applicants Bunty Mandal and Chhotu Mahto involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 356 of 2025, Under Sections- 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 318(2) B.N.S and Section 66-C, 66-D I.T Act, Police Station- Kotwali Ayodhya, District- Ayodhya/Faizabad, be released on bail on their furnishing separate personal bonds and two sureties each separately in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicants 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. (iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence 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. (v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). 9. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. October 13, 2025 DiVYa BAIL No. 9536 of 2025 2 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench