Allowed

Surendra Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2022BAIL/56772/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to Surendra Mishra in a rape and criminal intimidation case. The court noted contradictions in the FIR and victim's statements, finding the applicant was falsely implicated despite the grave nature of the offence and availability of independent trial.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Surendra Mishra on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56772 of 2022 Applicant :- Surendra Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Javed Husain Khan,Gulrez Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶3

Mr. Mool Chandra, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of first informant. Let the same be taken on record.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Mr. Mool Chandra, learned counsel for first informant and perused the material available on record.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.571 of 2022, under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda.

¶6

The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per version of the FIR as well as statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim, there are material contradictions and does not support the prosecution case. The applicant is already married. The victim has herself admitted that she was in consensual relationship with the applicant for the last 10 years and she pressurized the applicant to live separately. The victim is aged about 38 years. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.10.2022 having no previous criminal history.

¶7

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of

¶9

allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, considering the law laid down in the case of Data Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2018 (3), SCC, 2 but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Surendra Mishra involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.12.2022

¶19

Ajeet

¶20

Digitally signed by AJEET KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.12.13 12:23:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra 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

Kamaruddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankur Chaudhary Vs the State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home)

Kamlesh Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Dev Vs State of U.P.

Hasina Begum Vs State of U.P.

Shadab Vs State of U.P.