Mohit Saroj @ Bhalla vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

2.It is alleged in the prosecution case that the complainant had closed his shop in the evening on 27.1.2026 and went home. On reaching on the next morning to the shop, he found that an inverter, battery, CCTV camera with chip and some cash kept in a box were missing, which have allegedly been stolen by some unknown persons.

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged incident is of 27th whereas the first information report has been lodged on 29.1.2025 with unexplained delay of two days. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant was arrested from the public place, however, there is no independent public witness to the said arrest. In fact, it is submitted that the applicant has been arrested from his house by the police of Nawabganj. The applicant has been falsely implicated. The applicant has explained previous criminal history of five cases in the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 5.2.2025.

The co-accused Brijesh Kumar, Krishna Patel, Akash Saroj and Mohit Saroj have been granted bail vide orders, Annexure No.2 to the bail application.

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

4.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has explained criminal history, bail orders of the co-accused, manner in which the applicant's arrest has been made by the police, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

6.Let the applicant Mohit Saroj alias Bhalla, involved in Case Crime No.10/2026 under sections 305, 317(2), 317(4), 331(3), 3(5) BNS, P.S. Nawabganj, district Pratapgarh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each 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 applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

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

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court and he shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial 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.

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/court concerned may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

7.The application is allowed accordingly, on the ground of parity.

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the trial.

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

May 6, 2026

kkb/