Dismissed

Balendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2024ABAIL/38/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a second anticipatory bail application. The court held there were no new grounds, noting the applicant failed to comply with a previous writ court order to seek bail and had been discharged of service for forgery.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed due to lack of new grounds and failure to comply with prior writ court order.

Balendra Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3867

¶2

Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 38 of 2024 Applicant :- Balendra Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhaat Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Prabhat Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anurag Verma, the learned Additional Government Advocate-I appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Rishabh Tripathi, the learned counsel for the informant/Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Balrampur.

¶5

This is the second application filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.0085 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur.

¶6

The first application for anticipatory bail was rejected by means of an order dated 08.11.2023 after taking into consideration the fact that the application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Court on 28.04.2023 and thereafter he had filed a writ petition which was disposed of by means of an order dated 17.10.2023 observing that the applicant may appear and move an application for his release on bail but instead of complying with the order dated 17.10.2023 the applicant had filed anticipatory bail application after more than six months since the rejection of the anticipatory bail application by the Sessions Court.

¶7

This court had also taken into consideration the submission of the learned A.G.A.-I that it had come to light during enquiry

¶8

that the applicant was serving in place of some other person on the basis of forged documents. The court had recorded the submissions of learned counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari that in terms of an order passed in Writ Petition No.20471 (SS) of 2020, an enquiry had been conducted again and the applicant's service had been terminated by means of an order dated 14.08.2020.

¶9

The second application has been filed on the ground that the order dated 14.08.2020 was prior to disposal of Writ Petition No.20471 (SS) of 2020 and the learned counsel for the applicant had submitted that no fresh orders have been passed after disposal of Writ Petition NO.20471 (SS) of 2020.

¶10

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Balrampur has produced a copy of the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the B.S.A. Balrampur, whereby the termination of the applicant's services has been reaffirmed after conducting an enquiry.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the date 14.08.2020 mentioned in para 9 of the order dated 08.11.2023 is incorrect and it should have been mentioned as 31.03.2023.

¶12

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, there is no new ground in favour of the applicant for granting anticipatory bail to him. The application is accordingly dismissed.

¶13

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 12.1.2024 Ram.

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Balendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

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

Mohd. Izhar Khan and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Juvenile a of Crime No. 176/2023 Thru. His Father Z Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vinay Kumar Mishra and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Manoj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Balendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Aditya Singh @ Sukh Nidhan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another