Allowed

Alok Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2022/10839/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, the Court granted bail to the applicant. The judgment relied on the retaliation nature of the FIR, oral agreement documents indicating the applicant as a victim, and lack of material incrimination despite prior criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties on strict conditions regarding witness tampering and court attendance.

Alok Mishra Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10839 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Alok Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Pati Shukla,Dhirendra Kumar Sharma,Manoj Kumar Misra,Priyanka Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Umesh Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 247 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Ghazipur, District Lucknow.

¶7

As per the prosecution version, huge money of the investors is said to be duped by the present applicant including other coaccused persons by instituting various firms and companies in different names.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the present applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. He next added that the applicant had lodged an FIR on 7th February, 2020 and in retaliation thereto, the instant first information report has been lodged by the present informant on 30th March, 2020. He submits that main allegation is against the other co-accused persons and quoting the statements of other co-accused persons, the present applicant has also been named in the first information report. He submits that the allegation is with regard to dupe of huge

¶9

amount by establishing certain firms. He submits that the applicant Alok Mishra is neither Promoter, Director or Chairman of the firm as has been alleged in the first information report and further the present applicant was never operating any such account of the firm. He next added that Alok Mishra, the present applicant is no way beneficiary of the alleged amount which is said to be duped by the applicant including other co-accused persons. He added that the Firm namely Universal Smart Chip Services was being run by one co-accused Amit Davas. During the course of his argument, he has drawn attention towards first information report and has read that on the instigation of one Ram Milan Verma, the coaccused, the name of present applicant has been mentioned in the first information report. The relevant part of the FIR is extracted as follows:

¶10

"आललोक ममिशቦኋ कके गቇ኎प, जजिसमिके आललोक ममिशቦኋ, अममित डवቦኋस, रቦኋजिजीव रቦኋठठौर, सቦኋकजी, सቇ኎मቚኌयቦኋ अवस्थजी वव टजीमि ययमनिवसरल कके निቦኋमि एफ आई आर कर दजीजजियके ।"

¶11

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that it is planed story of the informant and it is not the ture fact which is mentioned in the first information report. He further added that the present applicant himself is a victim as an agreement was done in between the Dharma Enterprise and the present applicant, for getting certain works of the Government Department. He has also drawn attention towards page 54 of the bail application which is an agreement dated 15th October, 2019 signed in between Smt. Dharmvati Verma, the proprietor of the Dharma Enterprises and the present applicant. He added that huge amount of the present applicant has also been duped by Dharmavati Varma and Ram Milan Verma. He has also drawn attention at page 56 of the bail application, which is the list

¶12

issued by Dharma Enterprises, wherein the work of District Pratapgarh is allocated to Alok Mishra and work of District Kanpur Nagar has been allocated to Ankit Singh which find place at serial no.15 of the aforesaid list. Demonstrating the aforesaid list, he submits that this document itself is evident that Alok Mishra himself is a victim. He also added that a case was also filed under Section 138 NI Act by one Manoj Mishra an employee of Dharma Enterprises and when the fact came into knowledge of Alok Mishra that certain fraud has been committed by Dharma Enterprises and its proprietor, he got stop payment of the cheque.

¶13

He further added that police could not substantiate the allegation made against the present applicant as no incriminating material was ever recovered from the possession of the present applicant, either from his office or from his residence. Further no computer or other device were recovered to substantiate the aforesaid allegation. He also added that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report and instant FIR has been lodged in retaliation to the FIR lodged by the applicant. He also added that no case is made out under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Present applicant has been made escape goat for his no fault. He further added that the applicant has explained criminal history in para 33 of the bail application. The applicant is law abiding citizen and languishing in jail since 20.05.2021. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that at the very initial stage, more than 200 investors made complaints to Mukhya Mantri Portal and thereafter

¶15

investigation is started. He added that in fact, every co-accused persons have indicated the involvement of the applicant and applicant tried to segregate himself from the co-accused persons with respect to the allegation made in the first information report. He also added that the amount which was credited in the account of Dharma Enterprises, was again transferred in the account of 'Universal Smart Chips Services' and other companies, which are being run by the present applicant. He also added that there are 11 cases criminal history of the applicant and he has duped huge money of innocent persons/ investors and as such he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has also supported the version of the informant. He added that the applicant is pin key of the instant matter and there are previous criminal history of the applicant as such he is not entitled to any relief.

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident from bare perusal of the first information report that name of the present applicant has been mentioned in the FIR on the instigation of one co-accused person namely Ram Milan Verma. Prima facie from bare perusal of the contents of the FIR, does not make out any independent allegation and it seems to be an story i.e. afterthought of the informant. Further Alok Mishra himself seems to be victim as per the documents which have been annexed along with bail application at page 54 and 56. At page 54, there is an agreement between Dharmavati Verma and Alok Mishra i.e prior to the lodging of the first information report i.e. dated 1st August, 2019 and further list which was issued by Dharma Enterprises is also evident that district was also allocated to the present applicant for running the scheme of the Government for preparing digital ration card.

¶18

This Court has also noticed the fact that the first information report has been lodged by present applicant on 7th February, 2022 and after passing of about one and half month, the instant first information report has been lodged that too on the directions of the husband of Dharmavati Verma, proprietor of Dharma Enterprises i.e. on 30th March, 2021, which prima facie shows that the instant FIR has been lodged in retaliation to the FIR lodged by the present applicant. Further argument with respect to the fact that Alok Mishra was the then Director or proprietor of the firm does not stand as the statement of accounts provided by Investigating Officer in the Court was read by the counsel for the State says that Alok Mishra is no way concerned with the 'Universal Smart Chips Services'. Further 11 cases criminal history has been explained by the present applicant in para 33 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 20.05.2021.

¶19

Thus, considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶20

Let the applicant- Alok Mishra involved in the aforementioned crime 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:-

¶21

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶22

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶23

shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶24

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶25

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

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

¶27

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶28

Investigating Officer is present in Court in compliance of the order dated 01.11.2022. The presence of Investigating Officer is exempted.

¶29

Order Date :- 9.11.2022 A.Kr*

¶30

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.11.11 11:14:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Alok Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok 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

Monis Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home and 4 Others

Babloo Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Veerendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dillip Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Mahesh Lonia Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Dheeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.