Allowed

Pankaj Mishra v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2024BAIL/2492/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case arising from an alleged investment fraud in Maa Media House. The court noted the applicant's claimed lack of involvement, parity with a co-accused granted bail, and long incarceration, and allowed bail subject to conditions including personal bond with two sureties.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pankaj Mishra vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40764

¶2

Court No. - 21 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2492 of 2024 Applicant :- Pankaj Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Divya Tripathi,Prashant Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶4

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

¶5

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of Case Crime No.626 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, relating to police station Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶6

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is 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 along with other co-accused Rahul Mishra 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. It is submitted that the said company was run by the co-accused Rahul Mishra and the present applicant has no concern with the said company.

¶7

It is further submitted that the applicant was neither the associate of the company/firm nor he was involved in the aforesaid case. The applicant has no concern with the company and he is not beneficiary of the alleged transactions. His name was surfaced because he was known to the family of the coaccused Rahul Mishra. Nothing incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, in so far as the present applicant is concerned, criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para-18 of the bail application. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is in jail since 22.01.2022. i.e. spent almost two and half years.

¶8

The co-accused Shyamji Mishra has been granted bail vide order dated 23.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.469 of 2022.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

Let the applicant -Pankaj Mishra involved in aforesaid case 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. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 29.5.2024/Harshita

¶20

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

Pankaj Mishra v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pankaj Mishra v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abdul Kayyoom and Another Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, District-Gonda Now Balrampur and 3 Others

Ram Lakhan Vs Ram Naresh and 2 Others

Smt. Pushpa Gupta Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Ayodhya and 7 Others

Smt.Karamraji Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and Others

Shiv Shankar and Others Vs Consolidation Officer, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow and Another

State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Pubilc Works Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.and 2 Others Vs M/S Dsc Ltd. New Delhi Thru. Its Director Sri Harminder Singh and Another