Allowed

Shyamji Mishra v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Department Civil Secretariate Lucknow

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2024/469/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application by Shyamji Mishra was allowed. The High Court noted the applicant had been in jail since October 2021, while co-accused were on bail and charges were not framed. Finding no risk of flight or tampering, the Court granted bail on a bond with conditions regarding attendance and fixed dates.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties, subject to conditions of attendance and no adjournments.

Shyamji Mishra Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31748

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 469 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Shyamji Mishra Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Department Civil Secretariate Lucknow

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohsin Iqbal,Pramod Kumar Tiwari,Smt. Usha Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jay Prakash Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of Case Crime No.626 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, relating to police station Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been in jail since 30.10.2021. It is further stated that as per the allegation contained in the FIR, the applicant is said to have allured the complainant to make investment in Maa Media House It was stated that the applicant had represented that by investing the money in the firm, the amount would be doubled in about ten months and he also promised other benefits in the said firm.

¶10

It is in this context that the applicant is alleged to have issued certain appointment letters. After having received the invested sum, it was embezzled. It is also pointed out that all the other co-accused have been enlarged on bail in so far as the present applicant is concerned, there are nine cases of similar nature against the applicant and in all the said cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail.

¶11

It has also been pointed out that the charges have yet not been framed, accordingly there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded soon and the applicant as indicated above has already been in jail since 30.10.2021 i.e. spent almost two and half years.

¶12

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

¶13

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as 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 Shyamji Mishra involved in FIR/Case Crime No626 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, relating to police station Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya. 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,

¶18

without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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 sufÏcient 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 23.4.2024 ank

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shyamji Mishra v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Department Civil Secretariate Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamji Mishra v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Department Civil Secretariate Lucknow

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

Similar cases

Shyam Sunder Singh Vs Board of Revenue and Others

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Radhe Raman Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Rohit Mandal vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ravindra Kumar Singh vs Addl. Commissioner, Aydhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Shyam Babu vs Directorate of Enforcement Lko.