Allowed

Santosh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023ABAIL/1137/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by a government official accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court cited Supreme Court precedents and imposed standard conditions including surrender for interrogation and no tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on anticipatory bail with conditions including surrender for interrogation, no tampering with evidence or witnesses, no leaving India without permission, and appearance in co

Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170908

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1137 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Shukla,Girdhar Prasad Tripathi

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶7

List has been revised.

¶8

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.552 of 2019, registered under Sections 420 and 409 IPC at Police StationKotwali, District Rampur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have misused his power and is stated to have illegally funneled an amount of Rs.54,14,775/- in lieu of the electricity bills for which he was not authorized.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not misused the said amount for the tube-well that were operating within the jurisdiction of Jauhar University. Learned counsel has further stated that he has nothing to do with the said offence. He is a government official and has acted as a bona fide person. 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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has cooperated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Santosh Kumar Mishra be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii). 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;

¶17

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

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

¶21

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 24.8.2023 Ravi Kant

¶24

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Santosh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Kumar Mishra @ Shiv Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajab Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Verma and Another Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Gitiya @ Sangeeta Vs State of U.P.

S.M. Tariq Vs State of U.P.

Hariram @ Hariya Vs State of U.P.