Allowed

Sandeep Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2022ABAIL/9722/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Sandeep Mishra in an FIR concerning alleged provision of forged mining permits and cheating under IPC sections. The applicant was directed to appear for interrogation and not tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted until conclusion of trial on furnishing personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Sandeep Mishra Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9722 of 2022 Applicant :- Sandeep Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Udai Prakash Deo Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Uday Prakash Deo Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶4

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 372 of 2022, under Sections 379, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Sections 3/57/7 of U.P. Mines and Minerals (Concessions) Rules and Sections 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Sections 3/5 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶5

As per prosecution story, one truck bearing no. UP64 AT 6234 was intercepted by the police and it transpired later on that several accused persons used to sell the crushed stone in the form of gravel on the basis of illegal and forged permit EMM11. The applicant and one Beenu Singh are stated to have involved in providing those fake permits.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. The name of the applicant has come up in the statement of arrested co-accused persons in chain which is not admissible in law. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained in para-6 of the supplementary affidavit dated 15.11.2022. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶7

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶10

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Sandeep Mishra involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶11

that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶12

that 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶13

that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶14

that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶15

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶16

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

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.12.2022/Siddhant

¶20

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.12.05 18:12:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sandeep Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veer Singh @ Beerbahadur Singh Vs State of U.P.

Suryaprakash Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Yadav Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Guljar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Verma @ Sachin Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Sharma Vs State of U.P.and Another