The Single Judge allowed a bail application filed by Arun Kumar Mishra accused under various IPC sections, releasing him on personal bond and sureties without expressing an opinion on merits.
Applicant released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3375 of 2019
Applicant :- Arun Kumar Mishra @ Jagannath Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh,Dileep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla has filed his power on behalf of the complainant the same is taken on record.
Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused record of the bail application.
Crux contention raised is confined to the ambit that it is a case of failure of marriage settlement between the informant side and the applicant side, due to which, a concocted story has been cooked up to create a coercive pressure upon the applicant. Negotiation of marriage of the daughter of the informant and the brother-in-law of the applicant was underway between both the sides and the marriage was virtually settled, but at some stage, the age of the daughter of the informant was found to be more than that of the brother-in-law of the applicant, therefore, the settled marriage was broken and this led to lodging of the FIR after giving colour to the situation in a different way. It so happened that while the marriage was settled then the applicant, who was Class- IV employee of an educational institution decided
to organize 'Bhagwat Katha', therefore, he needed some money from the informant and the informant gave him around Rs.3,50,000/- by depositing the money in his account and out of Rs.3,50,000/-, Rs.55,000/- and Rs.50,000/have been deposited in the account of the informant by the applicant, now the balance remains pegged to Rs.2,45,000/-, which money applicant has given in cash to the informant, however, the applicant is again ready to pay back Rs.2,45,000/-, if the informant does not agree to the payment of Rs.2,45,000/- earlier. To say that the money was paid for earning employment to the informant side is absolutely incorrect. There is no proof as to how the rest of the money was paid to the applicant. The notary prepared and brought on record is fake and cannot be relied and the same is denied. If the allegations contained in the FIR are accepted then on the face of it the transaction itself arises out of illegal demand by the informant himself for earning employment by paying money. In support of his specific contention, he has cited judgement of this Court Smt. Gopa Chakravarthy versus State of U.P., 2007(9) ADJ 309 (LB) , wherein such illegal practice has been deprecated by this Court and observed that such transactions are illegal on the face and the informant himself should be made co- accused. To say that approximately Rs.20 lacs were paid for earning employment is absolutely incorrect.
Per contra, Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the entire detail of F.I.R. discloses fact
that a huge amount has been paid to the applicant, and in that regard statement of the witnesses proves it, the notary letter/affidavit has also been given by the applicant, which is dated 17.3.2017, which also admits claim of the informant regarding receipt of money (20 lacs). To say that this notary is fake, is absolutely incorrect. The applicant though claims to be a class- IV employee, a transaction approximately for Rs.29 lacs has taken place through his account within 20 months ranging from 12.01.2017 to 05.10.2018. The money was given in a legal way. It was not for earning any employment. The post had been created from the quota of the Commissioner and the applicant had promised that he will talk to the commissioner and earn employment for the informant for which he needed money and this cannot be treated to be public employment by illegal means. Fake employment letter was also issued by the applicant.
Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.
Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Accordingly, bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Arun Kumar Mishra @ Jagannath involved in Case Crime No.286 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 504, 506, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Tharwai, District Allahabad be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Order Date :- 25.1.2019 Raj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the prima facie satisfaction of the Court and risk of tampering with witnesses.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Gopa Chakravarthy versus State of U.P.Referred¶8
Smt. Gopa Chakravarthy versus State of U.P., 2007(9) ADJ 309 (LB)
Arun Kumar Mishra @ Jagannath
State Of U.P.
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
