Allowed

Shri Bhushan Mishra and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2023ABAIL/11229/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC. The court relied on the judgment of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and imposed standard conditions including availability for interrogation and prohibition on leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted until the conclusion of trial subject to furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and compliance with specified conditions.

Shri Bhushan Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:201901

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11229 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shri Bhushan Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Sandeep Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 205 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the informant. There are particular allegation of assault against the sister-in-law Saumya. The case of the applicants is at a different footing to the case of co-accused Saumya and Piyush Mishra (husband). Learned counsel has further stated that they are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case owing to their relationship with the co-accused persons. They have apprehension of their arrest. They have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution.

¶10

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed, they will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶11

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 applicants and also the fact that the applicants have no criminal history.

¶12

Considering 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 applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either

¶14

ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed .

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Shri Bhushan Mishra and Indu 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:-

¶16

i. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

ii. that the applicants 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;

¶18

iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶19

iv. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence are exempted;

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

Order Date :- 18.10.2023 Siddhant

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shri Bhushan Mishra and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Bhushan Mishra and Another 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

Vineet Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Richa Verma and Another Vs State of U.P.

Dheeru Trivedi @ Dhirendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Tawwad @ Tauwab Husain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karam Husain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Wahid Vs State of U.P. and Another