Allowed

Mayank Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Jan 2019BAIL/49886/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court found the applicant fit for bail. The court ordered release on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance, non-interference with evidence, and no unlawful activities, despite the involvement of serious offences including murder.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount subject to conditions of attendance non-tampering and law-abiding conduct.

Mayank Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49886 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mayank Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Venu Gopal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is not named in F.I.R. regarding the incident dated 6.6.2018 lodged against 10-15 unknown persons with allegations that in the night of 5/6.6.2018, first informant was walking with Kamlesh and Junior Engineer Sushil Kumar Gupta and work of road cutting was going on for laying pipeline for drinking water by Water Corporation and at about 1:30 a.m. 10-15 unknown persons questioned for work of road cutting and following abuses assaulted with bricks, stones and lathi-danda, resulting in injuries to first informant and Kamlesh and death of Junior Engineer Sushil Kumar Gupta; that in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C., first informant and Kamlesh, injured witnesses have not named anybody, however in additional statement dated 22.6.2018 injured Kamlesh upon viewing C.C.T.V. footage made improvements by stating that Rohit @ Lambu was having danda in his hand, Amanraj was armed with piece of brick and Vikas Singh with stone and all the above three beaten deceased and injured with danda, bricks and stones and Abhishek Kumar Yadav, Anshu Singh etc. were helping them and applicant was standing there; that applicant did not participate in the incident in question and no role of causing injuries to any of the injured or deceased has been assigned to him; that co-accused Ashu Singh @ Anshu Singh @ Mahadev has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 3.1.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.49758 of 2018, copy of which has been produced for perusal; that the case of applicant is distinguishable from Rohit @ Lambu, Amanraj and Vikas Singh, who have been assigned with the role of actively participating in the incident and causing injuries to injured or deceased; that applicant has explained his criminal history in para 12 of affidavit filed in support of bail application; that

¶8

applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 7.6.2018.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.

¶10

Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, grant of bail to co-accused as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Mayank Mishra be released on bail in Case Crime No.554 of 2018, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 308, 353, 325, 332, 333, 302 and 34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Lanka, District Varanasi on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶13

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

Order Date :- 31.1.2019 Tamang

Mayank Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Raisa Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Mona Thakur Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Mishra Vs the State of U.P.

Smt. Munni Devi Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Sahu @ Bhure @ Ankit Vs State of U.P.