Allowed

Surendra Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 May 2023ABAIL/1493/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order granting anticipatory bail to Surendra Nath Mishra in a corruption and fraud case under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, subject to furnishing a personal bond and appearing for investigation and trial.

What did the court decide?

Interim order conveys that the application is allowed. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each

Surendra Nath Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:98388

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1493 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Surendra Nath Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Beerendra Singh Pal,Manoj Kumar Keshari

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶7

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Keshari, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶8

Perused the record.

¶9

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicantSurendra Nath Mishra in connection with Case Crime No. 66A of 2006, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 218, 120B/34 IPC and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Bairia, District-Ballia.

¶10

Record shows that in respect of incidents which are alleged to have occurred from the year 2002 to the year, 2005, a delayed FIR dated 06.05.2006 was lodged by first informant-Khaderu Ram and was registered as Case Crime No. 66A of 2006, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 218, 120B/34 IPC and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Bairia, DistrictBallia. In the aforesaid FIR as many as 121 persons have been nominated as named accused.

¶11

At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that 15 of the co-accused approached this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3910 of 2023 (Suruj Ram and 14 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2023. For ready reference, the same is extracted hereinunder;-

¶12

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶13

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 66-A of 2006, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201,

¶14

218, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Bairia, District Ballia with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶15

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them.

¶16

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that at the relevant time, applicants were working as proprietor of the fair price shop and there is no such evidence that applicants have committed any cheating or forgery or committed any breach of trust. The first information report was lodged against 121 persons including applicants and only general allegations have been levelled that the accused persons including applicants during period between 2002-2005 have misappropriated/ committed breach of trust in respect of food-grains through fair price shops.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicants has referred the facts of the matter and has submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicants and only general allegations have been levelled. Further, this case was registered on 06.05.2006 and since then, a period of more than 16 years has been passed but the investigation of the case is still going on.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Vishwanath Prasad has already been granted anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 CrPC No. 7061 of 2022 vide order dated 29.11.2022.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that the applicants are ready to co-operate during investigation and during trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court.

¶20

It has been lastly stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶22

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶23

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶24

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶25

In the event of arrest of the present applicants involved in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions :-

¶26

(i) the applicants will make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶27

(ii) the applicants will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶28

(iii) the applicants would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶29

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶30

Order Date :- 10.4.2023"

¶31

Apart from above, various other co-accused have also been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Their bail orders are on record as Annexure-3 to the affidavit collectively.

¶32

On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that case of present applicant is similar and identical to aforementioned co-accused that there is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which, the case of present applicant can be so distinguished so as to deny him the benefit of the order dated 10.04.2023. He, therefore, submits that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the order dated 10.04.2023, liberty of applicant is also liable to be protected by this Court by extending the benefit of anticipatory bail in his favour.

¶33

Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. The FIR was lodged on 06.05.2006. However, inspite of the fact that more than 17 years have rolled by, the charge sheet has not yet been submitted. Applicant has been co-operating with the investigation inasmuch as, no coercive process was obtained by the Investigating Officer against applicant. However, irrespecitve of above, there is reasonable apprehension of arrest of applicant. He, therefore, submits that liberty of applicant be protected by extending the benefit of anticipatory bail. In case, applicant is

¶34

granted the benefit of anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶35

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application for anticipatory bail. However, he could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶36

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, applicant had made out a case for bail.

¶37

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶38

In the event of arrest of the present applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime number, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions :-

¶39

(i) the applicant will make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶40

(ii) the applicant will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶41

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶42

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶43

Order Date :- 8.5.2023

¶44

Vinay

¶45

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Nath Mishra v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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 Awasthi Vs C.B.I

Sanjay Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Irtaza and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Pal Vs Shiv Raj Singh

Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs State of U.P.