Allowed

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

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2024BAIL/795/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a third bail application for an accused in a dacoity case, citing inordinate delay in trial, lack of identification by eye witnesses, and bail granted to co-accused. The applicant, in custody since 2016, was released on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed with conditions to execute personal bond and furnish two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each.

Vikas Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10919

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 795 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Vikas Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shanker Lal Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.20 of 2016 under sections 396 and 412 IPC, P.S. Nawabganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

This is third bail application, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected for want of prosecution on 09.01.2021 while the second bail application was rejected on 30.11.2022 mainly on the ground that the trial was going on and bail could not be granted to the applicant at that stage of trial and directions were issued for expeditious conclusion of the trial within six months.

¶9

In the light of the said, the counsel for the applicant argues that in the FIR, the applicant was not named, however, his name surfaced during the investigation in the statements. He draws my attention to the statement of the alleged eye witness being the son of the deceased who could not identify the applicant and there are no other statement linking the applicant with the offence in question. It is further argued that the applicant is in custody since 26.02.2016 for being tried of an offence under sections 396 and 412 IPC. He draws my attention to section 396 IPC which prescribes for punishment of death, imprisonment of life or an imprisonment of ten years. It is further argued that one of the co-accused Mohd. Imran was enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 13.07.2021 passed in Bail No.5709 of 2018. As regards the criminal history, the same have been duly explained in para 20 of the bail application and in all the cases the applicant is on bail except a case crime no.898 of 2015 of which the applicant has no information.

¶10

Considering the inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial, despite orders of this court coupled with the fact that none of the witnesses so far have identified the applicant to link him

¶11

with the offence in question including the eye witness and also the fact that the co-accused has been enlarged on bail, the applicant who is in custody since 26.02.2016, is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Vikas Mishra be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶14

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.2.2024 VNP/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Amrendra Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jiyauddin Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Chhote Alias Samarpal Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home U.P. Government, Lucknow

Satya Prakash Mishra Alias Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko.

Ravendra Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Priya Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another