Allowed

Arun Mishra @ Arun Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2022ABAIL/3158/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge at Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant for an alleged enforcement of sale agreement case involving fraud under IPC Sections 420, 406, and 120B. The court held that a case for bail is made out based on the applicant's role being merely an introducer and the civil nature of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each; conditions: availability for interrogation, no inducement to witnesses, cooperation in investigation.

Arun Mishra @ Arun Kumar Mishra Vs State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3158 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Arun Mishra @ Arun Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 788 of 2016, under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC, P.S. Idirapuram, District Ghaziabad, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. As per prosecution version, the alleged agreement for sale was entered into between co-accused Vikram Upadhayay and first informant for sale of property of co-accused Vikram Upadhayay. Learned counsel submitted that the first informant has not paid the sale amount in terms of the agreement and thus, co-accused Vikram Upadhyay has sold his property to some third party. The allegation against the applicant is that he has merely introduced the buyer and seller and except that there is no allegation against the applicant at all. The applicant is neither a beneficiary nor he has participated in the process of execution

¶8

of sale-deed, executed by the co-accused Vikram Upadhyay. It has further submitted that earlier applicant and co-accused Vikram Upadhyay have filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court and later on the parties have arrived at the settlement, wherein, Rs. 32 lakhs was to be paid to the opposite party no.2 within one year. Learned counsel submitted that in fact the said amount was to be paid by co-accused Vikram Upadhyay as the property was sold by him. Learned counsel has also referred the statement of Nitin Tiwari, who is an independent witness, wherein no role has been assigned to the applicant. It is submitted that the matter in dispute is purely civil in nature and that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the first informant has argued that applicant has played main role in sale of the property of co-accused Vikram Upadhyay to third party, whereas the said co-accused Vikram Upadhyay has agreed to sell that property to the informant and amount of Rs. 23,50,000/- was paid to co-accused Vikram Upadhyay by the informant. Learned counsel further submitted that in proceedings of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it was submitted that on behalf of applicant and co-accused Vikram Upadhayay before the Court that both the parties have arrived at settlement and they have to pay Rs. 32 lakhs to the first informant within one year in four installments of Rs. 8 lakhs each but they have not paid any amount to the first informant. It

¶10

was also submitted that due to non-compliance of said undertaking the interim said relief granted to applicant and coaccused against arrest, was withdrawn by that Court. It has been submitted that in view of conduct of applicant, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶11

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶12

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Arun Mishra @ Arun Kumar Mishra in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Court below concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶16

(ii) the applicant 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.7.2022 A. Tripathi

¶20

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.07.05 16:57:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arun Mishra @ Arun Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Mishra @ Arun Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyabhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajan Maurya and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhaiya Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Veer Gangwar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others