Allowed

Shubham Mishra @ Hitesh Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024BAIL/9512/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The applicant, charged with being an accomplice in a monetary robbery where the primary accused committed the act of looting and inflicting injuries, was granted bail. The court noted the applicant's lack of prior criminal record, his distinct role compared to the main offenders, and found him fit for bail with sp

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties by the satisfaction of the court concerned. Standard conditions regarding evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and court p

Shubham Mishra @ Hitesh Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:61170

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9512 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shubham Mishra @ Hitesh Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Pandey,Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the complainant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that the injured Sarvesh Kumar Shukla was going to Jagdishpur on 22.7.2024 by car of co-accused Anil Mishra and another unnamed person for withdrawing money from SBI Bank, Jagdishpur Branch. Both the co-accused persons did not go inside the bank with him. He withdrew Rs.3,80,000/-, kept Rs.1000/- in his pocket and the remaining Rs.3,80,000/- in a black bag and came back and sat in the vehicle of co-accused Anil Mishra. Anil Mishra was driving the car and the injured was sitting beside him on the front seat. On the back seat, the unknown accused was sitting. On the way, he was caught hold by unknown person sitting on the back and started throttling with his hands and Anil Kumar Mishra stopped the car and assaulted with knife, causing injuries on his stomach and chest and also on his fingers. His money was snatched and treating him dead, they threw him on the way.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation of committing loot is on the co-accused Anil Kumar Mishra and another co-accused Rajnish Mishra and not on the present applicant, although, there is a recovery shown for Rs.22,000/-

¶9

allegedly looted from Sarvesh Shukla, injured.

¶10

It is submitted that father of the applicant is working as M.D. Self Corporation, Delhi since last five years. On 22.7.2024, his father has withdrawn Rs.40,000/- from P.N.B., Branch Janakpuri and came to the house and the money was kept in house which was forcefully taken by police personnel and out of which, the police has shown false recovery of Rs.22,000/-.

¶11

It is submitted that there is no public witness to the recovered amount. It has no concern with the alleged offence. Only allegation against the applicant is that he has given ride to one of the co-accused, who is Mama, on the motorcycle and who was involved in the offence. However, the applicant has not been put to test identification parade. The applicant's role is quite distinct from the co-accused Anil Kumar Mishra and Rajneesh Mishra. Recovery of knife has been made from the co-accused Anil Mishra. Rs.1,70,000/- of the looted money has also been shown to have been recovered from the co-accused Anil Mishra. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 25.7.2024.

¶12

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

4. Learned A.G.A. and complainant's counsel have opposed the prayer for bail. The complainant's counsel submits that the applicant has hatched a conspiracy. He is involved in the crime and hence, the bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶14

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, as per statement of the injured and brother of the injured Sarvesh Kumar Shukla, co-accused Anil Mishra and Rajneesh Mishra have been

¶15

assigned main role of looting and inflicting injuries on the injured, the role of the applicant is distinct from the role of coaccused, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶16

6. Let the applicant Shubham Mishra alias Hitesh Mishra, involved in Case Crime No.224 of 2024 under sections 309(6), 109, 61(2), 117(2) B.N.S., 2023, P.S. Jagdishpur, district Amethi 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) 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.

¶20

(iv) 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.

¶21

(v) 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

¶22

Code.

¶23

(vi) 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.

¶24

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 kkb/

¶26

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

Shubham Mishra @ Hitesh Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Mishra @ Hitesh 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

Mohd. Saifi @ Samiul Haq Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Ram Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Dr. Siddhartha Patel @ Dr.Siddhartha Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Alok Giri and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Manoj @ Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Kamlesh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko