Allowed

Rishab Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2022BAIL/4717/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 406, 420, 467-471, 504, 506 IPC arising from a cheque dishonour case, the High Court allowed the application. The applicant, faced with no prior criminal record, was ordered released on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties on specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4717 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rishab Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.290 of 2021 at Police Station-Barra, DistrictKanpur Nagar under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 10.12.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.22, Kanpur Nagar on 21.12.2021.

¶7

Shri Gaurav Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The F.I.R. is the result of money dispute between the parties. The parties had business relations and financial transactions over the years. However, the business relationships soured over some transactions. The F.I.R. has been lodged to extort the money from the applicant. The applicant did not issue the offending cheque. At best even if the prosecution case is

¶8

taken on its face value, it is only a case of a cheque dishonour. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶9

Shri Indra Prakash Srivastava, learned A.G.A could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶10

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant-Rishab Mishra be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶13

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence

¶14

during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 5.4.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶18

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.04.06 10:41:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rishab Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishab 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Shakya Vs State of U.P.

Hasmeer Khan @ Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Vs State of U.P.

Joheb @ Joeb Vs State of U.P.

Golu Varma Vs State of U.P.