Allowed

Pratap Narain Mishra and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2020ABAIL/1111/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Pratap Narain Mishra and Sushila Mishra. They were accused of supporting their son in a domestic dispute involving Section 498A charges. The petitioners had no prior criminal record.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and conditions regarding investigation timeline.

Pratap Narain Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1111 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Pratap Narain Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Nath Vishwakarma,Pradeep Kumar (Senior Adv.),Praveen Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chitranshu Srivastav

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Onkar Nath Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Chitranshu Srivastav, counsel for the informant, Ms. Rachna Tiwari, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the first information report as well as rejection order.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant no. 1 is father-in-law and applicant no. 2 is mother-in-law of the first informant. It is argued that they have been falsely implicated in this case along with other family members. It has been argued that the main allegation of assault on the abdomen of the first informant has been made against her husband and so far as the applicants are concerned, vague allegation has been made that they were exhorting their son to take divorce with the first informant; they have not been attributed to any role of causing injury to the informant. It is also pointed out that the first informant has also made a complaint in Gurgaon against the applicants which was withdrawn by her and then filed F.I.R. at Kanpur for extraneous reason. It is stated that case of co-accused (her husband), is distinguishable from that of the applicants. The matter needs deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to. Therefore, the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dispute that the allegation against the applicants that the applicants were on the side of their son.

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and having no criminal antecedents, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶9

In the event of arrest of the applicants Pratap Narain Mishra and Smt. Sushila Mishra involved in Case Crime No. 318 of 2019, u/s 3/4 D.P. Act and Section 498A, 506, 504, 323, 313 IPC, P.S. Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Nagar, shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions.

¶10

1.that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶11

2.that 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

¶12

officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶13

3.that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶14

4.that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants;

¶15

5.that the investigating officer is directed to conclude the investigation in the present case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this court while considering or deciding the present bail application of the applicants;

¶16

6.that the applicants are directed to produce certified copy of this order before the SSP/SP concerned within 10 days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of the present order;

¶17

7.that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

8.that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

9.that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

10.that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶21

It is made clear that if the charge-sheet is submitted and cognizance is taken and matter is committed to the court of session, as the case may be, the trial court shall decide the trial preferably within a period of one year from the cognizance/ committal of the case to the Court of Sessions.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, the application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.

¶23

It is made clear that co-accused Kartikey Mishra is not entitled to claim parity from the applicants.

¶24

Order Date :- 5.2.2020

¶25

Dhirendra/

Pratap Narain Mishra and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap Narain Mishra and Another 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

Azeem Vs State of U.P.

Panna Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Talib Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aamir Faheem Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Nisha Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Shafi Alias Pappu Alias Wali Vs State of U.P.