Allowed

Sunil Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2022BAIL/29397/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court considered a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant who was falsely implicated in a murder case. Acknowledging parity with a similarly placed co-accused already granted bail, the Court found the case fit for bail and released the applicant on personal bond with two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding trial conduct and presence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding trial presence and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29397 of 2022 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Tripathi,Saurabh Chaturvedi

¶3

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri I. K. Chaturvedi, learned senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Saurabh Chaturvedi as well as Sri Anand Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶5

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 577 of 2021, under Sections 363, 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Meja, District Prayagraj.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. After two months of the alleged incident, during investigation, the complicity of the applicant has been shown only on the basis of confessional statement of independent witness, namely, Dinesh Shukla in which he has assigned the common role for inflicting injury upon the deceased to the co-accused Govind Prasad, Arun Kumar Mishra and the applicant. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 26.4.2022.

¶7

It is further contended that similarly placed co-accused Govind Prasad has already been granted bail by another bench this court vide orders dated 20.10.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 29868 of 2022 therefore the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶8

I have perused the bail order of the co-accused and find that the role assigned to the present applicant is almost similar to that of co-accused person, who has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. oppose the application for bail and argued that the offence as alleged in the FIR is made out against the applicant, therefore the applicant is not entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶10

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of

¶11

punishment 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.

¶12

Let the applicant Sunil Kumar Mishra, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

(ii) The applicant 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 IPC.

¶15

(iii) 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., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of six months after the release of the applicant.

¶18

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting 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.

¶20

Digitally signed by AFAQ AHMAD Date: 2022.12.15 13:43:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

¶21

Order Date :- 15.12.2022/A.

Sunil Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

Shivkant Vs State of U.P.

Ramai Vs State of U.P.

Ram Avatar Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd Rafey Vs State of U.P.

Sher Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others