Allowed

Prateek Kumar Mishra @ Prateek Mishra v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2024/3456/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Allahabad granted bail to Prateek Kumar Mishra in an IPC cheating and forgery case. The court noted no specific fear of flight or witness tampering despite the applicant's criminal history, ordering release on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each, subject to conditions regarding attendance and no adjournments.

Prateek Kumar Mishra @ Prateek Mishra Vs State of U.P… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28203

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3456 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Prateek Kumar Mishra @ Prateek Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sharan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of FIR/Case Crime No.0176 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that this is the second bail application. It is urged that the first bail application of the applicant was not pressed and it was not decided on merit.

¶9

It is further urged that as per the averments made in the FIR, it is alleged that the applicant had taken money for giving the complainant placed in some employment. It is also submitted that the aforesaid transaction was not related for providing any employment rather the applicant was running his business and there was a transaction in terms whereof the money had to be paid and on account of COVID-19 Pandemic, the business of the applicant failed and since he was unable to return the same, the FIR has been lodged.

¶10

It is further alleged that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.04.2022. The applicant has criminal history of four cases which have been disclosed in Paragraph-28 of this bail application and in all the four cases the applicant has been enlarged on bail and the copies of the bail orders have also been placed on record as Annexure No.7. It is further submitted that in case if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶12

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as

¶13

considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Prateek Kumar Mishra @ Prateek Mishra involved in FIR/Case Crime No.0176 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶15

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶17

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 8.4.2024 Rakesh/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prateek Kumar Mishra @ Prateek Mishra v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prateek Kumar Mishra @ Prateek Mishra v. State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

Altaf Husain @ Altaf Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Balattar Singh and 10 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Kamal Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neelam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Vikaram @ Khuddi Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others