Allowed

Sushil Kumar Mishra @ Sushil Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2023ABAIL/9717/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge bench granted anticipatory bail to applicant Sushil Kumar Mishra facing charges of forgery related to a forged release order under IPC sections, allowing bail pending filing of police report subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail pending filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and complying with conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:184242

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9717 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Mishra @ Sushil Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Yadav,Karunesh Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Sushil Kumar Mishra @ Sushil Mishra seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.48 of 2023, under Sections 197, 198, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Barsathi, District Jaunpur.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that the applicant has absolutely no knowledge about the release order being forged and as a matter of fact the said release order was handed over to him by his father Shyam Narain Mishra and on his instruction he submitted the said order at the police station concerned. It is also submitted that applicant has criminal history of a solitary case which has been explained by way of supplementary affidavit. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. The applicant is cooperating with the investigation. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the whole fraud has been committed by the present applicant,

¶11

who happens to be the Home Guard and taking benefit of his position, he has procured the forged release order from the Court and submitted the same at the police station concerned and in pursuance of that order, the applicant was released.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

From the perusal of the record, it reveals that a forged release order allegedly issued by the Court was submitted at the Police Station concerned by the present applicant and in pursuance thereof he was released. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started, which is still going on. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that on the basis of confessional statement of the applicant, his name was included in the matter during course of investigation. No proper interrogation has been done by the Investigating Officer with the father of the applicant as to whether the alleged release order was handed over by him to the applicant or not. Applicant is cooperating with the investigation.

¶14

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶15

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and

¶16

has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶17

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶18

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant, 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 Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

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

¶21

(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.9.2023

¶25

safi

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sushil Kumar Mishra @ Sushil Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Mishra @ Sushil Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Ajay Garg Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Firoz Vs State of U.P.

Ranjana Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Smt Khushi Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Bhooshan Singh @ Prabhuji Vs State of U.P. and Another