Allowed

Sachin Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2024BAIL/12379/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under BNS sections 316(4), 317(2), 212(kha), 306, 238(Ga), 3(5), the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, allowed the bail of an accused accused of cheating/fraud who was in jail since August 1, 2024, finding no cogent evidence or independent public eye witness.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amounts, subject to specific conditions regarding witness tampering and appearance in court.

Sachin Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80830

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12379 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sachin Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava,Avinash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 219 of 2024, under sections 316(4), 317(2), 212(kha), 306, 238(Ga), 3(5) of BNS P.S.- Kunda DistricPratapgarh.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that it has been alleged that the present applicant has committed cheat & fraud, but there is no independent public eye witness of the incident. He also added that the complainant was annoyed with the present applicant and therefore, he has named the applicant in this matter, but there is no cogent piece of evidence against him and he has also shown the other falsity in the story of prosecution coupled with the fact that applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 26 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 1.8.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Further submitted that the co-accused namely, Rahul Tiwari, has already been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 24-10-2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11244 of 2024 and the applicant is seeking parity of the same.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief, but, he could not dispute the fact that the co-accused named above, has already been enlarged on bail.

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 1.8.2024; there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant & also there is no independent public eye witness of the incident; applicant has no previous criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 26 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Sachin Mishra, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He shall remain present

¶16

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;

¶17

(3) 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.; and

¶18

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 AKS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sachin Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Kamla Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Khelavan @ Ramkhelawan Kotedar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko and Another

Sunil Kumar Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Rohit Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko

Pankaj Kumar Shukla and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs and 3 Others