Km. Priya Mishra @ Shweta Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15642

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 271 of 2025

Applicant :- Km. Priya Mishra @ Shweta Mishra And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Jayant Pratap Singh

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amar Singh,Mayankar Singh,Neeraj Kumar Rai

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Jayant Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Anurag Verma, the learned AGA-I for the State, Shri Mayankar Singh, the learned for the informant and perused the record.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicants on bail in Case Crime No.71 of 2021, under Sections 376-D & 328 I.P.C., Police Station P.G.I., District Lucknow.

¶10

3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 10.02.2021 against the applicants, who are brother and sister and Om Prakash Mishra, who is the applicants' father, stating that the applicant No.1 visited the informant's house about six months ago. She took the informant to her own house in Vrindavan Colony where she offered her tea. The informant got unconscious after having tea and upon regaining consciousness, she found that the accused persons had prepared obscene photographs and videos of the informant while she was unconscious and they had made physical relations with her. She further alleged that the accused persons were blackmailing her on the strength of the obscene photographs and videos and they pressurized her to make physical relations with other persons. She alleged that the accused persons were running a sex racket.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicants are innocent, they have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have no criminal history.

¶12

A copy of the charge-sheet dated 28.09.2022 has been annexed with the affidavit.

¶13

The informant has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail application. However, no material has been annexed with the counter affidavit.

¶14

The applicants have filed a rejoinder affidavit, annexing therewith a copy of the medico-legal examination report which mentions no mark of injury or sign of use of force, copies of the statement and additional statements of the informant recorded by the Investigation Officer and copy of her statement recorded by the Magistrate besides statement of some other persons.

¶15

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that upon regaining consciousness, she saw that the accused persons were laughing at her and she felt that some misdeed has been committed while she was unconscious but she could not tell as to who has committed the misdeed against her. She further stated that the applicant No.1 had shown her a part of her video and she is blackmailing her on the strength of that video. She further stated that the accused persons had acted as mediator in settlement of her younger sister's marriage. She could not tell as to which of the accused persons had committed the misdeed against her. In her additional statement also, she stated that she did not know as to which of the accused persons had committed misdeed against her but she had seen the applicant No.2 in the video. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that the applicant No.1 had shown her the video wherein she had

¶16

seen the applicant No.2 kissing and raping her.

¶17

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the FIR has been lodged after six months of the alleged incident; that besides the statement of the informant, no other material could be furnished or collected in support of the allegations; that in the initial statements, the informant stated that although she had seen the video, she could not tell as to which of the accused persons had committed misdeed against her whereas in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that she had seen in the video that the applicant No.2 had raped her, which is serious discrepancy in her two statements and that no material could be collected in support of the allegations, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶18

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicants- Km. Priya Mishra @ Shweta Mishra and Nirbhay Kumar Mishra before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court :-

¶19

(i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶20

(ii) that the applicants 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

¶21

evidence;

¶22

(iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶23

(iv) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶24

(v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶25

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶26

Order Date :- 17.3.2025

¶27

-Amit K-

¶28

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

Km. Priya Mishra @ Shweta Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Priya Mishra @ Shweta Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maroof Anwar Hashmi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. / Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Alok Kumar @ Alok Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Ritesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Km. Priya Mishra @ Shweta Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shyamu @ Ramu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others