Allowed

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

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2024BAIL/256/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant accused in a cheating case involving investment fraud. Despite opposition, the court noted the delay in trial exceeding two years without framing of charges and the grievance being purely financial, leading to the release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and pressurizing witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:41309

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 256 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pankaj Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Chaudhary,Divya Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Prashant Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, the learned State Counsel and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 787 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya (Faizabad).

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 29.11.2021 against five persons, including the applicant, and his family members, stating that the accused persons had allured the informant to make investment in Maa Media House.

¶10

The informant was paid some bonus for some time but thereafter he was allowed to accept employment in Maa Media House and make other persons invest in the company. The informant got Rs. 7,86,71,950/- invested in the company but no amount was refunded to the applicant.

¶11

The applicant's involvement in 12 other cases has been disclosed in para-14 of the affidavit filed in support of the application, all of which are of similar nature and the petitioner has been granted bail in four of those cases.

¶12

The applicant is languishing in jail since 22.01.2022 and it has been stated in para 18 of the affidavit filed in support of the application that the trial has not even commenced till date.

¶13

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the grievance of the informant is against non-refund of money invested in a company, for which no civil proceedings have been initiated; that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.01.2022 and even charges have not been framed even expiry of a period of more than two years, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶15

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Pankaj Mishra be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(i) the applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶18

(ii) the applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicants shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶19

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 30.5.2024 -Amit K-

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Rakesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Janki Prasad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Mahangu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Mohammad Wasiuddin Alias Waseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Yogesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. Lko. and Another