Dismissed¶29

Usha Mishra ( in Fir Usha Devi ) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 May 2025ABAIL/496/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

anticipatory bail; Section 438 Cr.P.C.; interim anticipatory bail misuse; forged fabricated sale deed 20 August 1971; mutation rejected 7 September 2020; case crime 502 of 2023; Sections 419 420 467 468 471 120-B IPC; Kotwali Nagar Gonda; Usha Mishra Usha Devi; Brijesh Kumar Awasthi; Investigating Officer non-cooperation report 27 May 2025; Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC OnLine SC 98; application rejected; liberty to apply regular bail; Manish Mathur J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; 2025:AHC-LKO:31855; 27.5.2025

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the applicant to apply for regular bail ¶29

Usha Mishra ( in Fir Usha Devi ) Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty granted to the applicant to apply for regular bail

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether final indulgence (conversion of the interim anticipatory bail into confirmed anticipatory bail under S. 438 Cr.P.C.) should be extended to the applicant, given reports that she failed to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer while enjoying interim protection.

¶29

Court's answer

Having regard to its earlier order of 19th May, 2025 (noting the applicant's admitted failure to appear before the Investigating Officer, excused on grounds of ill health) and the Investigating Officer's written instructions of 27th May, 2025 (reporting continued non-cooperation), the Court concluded that the applicant is misusing the interim anticipatory bail granted to her.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Finding no ground to grant further indulgence, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, granting the applicant liberty to apply instead for regular bail.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Manish Mathur, J.), Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 496 of 2025 (neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:31855), order dated 27.5.2025. Applicant Usha Mishra (in F.I.R. Usha Devi), counsel Vijay Nath Pandey, sought anticipatory bail in case crime No. 502 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda, relating to an allegedly forged sale deed of 20th August, 1971 whose mutation was rejected on 7th September, 2020; she was alleged to be the mother-in-law of main accused Brijesh Kumar Awasthi and a gang member involved in fabricating sale deeds. Interim anticipatory bail had been granted on 6th May, 2025 in view of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine SC 98, with directions to appear before the Investigating Officer on 12th May, 2025. An order of 19th May, 2025 recorded her admitted failure to attend (attributed to illness); affidavits of opposite party No. 2 and the Investigating Officer's written instructions of 27th May, 2025 reported non-cooperation and failure to provide a statement, though counsel asserted attendance on 26th May, 2025. Concluding that the interim anticipatory bail was being misused, the Court rejected the application and permitted the applicant to seek regular bail.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31855

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 496 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Usha Mishra ( In Fir Usha Devi ) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State and opposite party No.2 in person.

¶7

Earlier on 6th May, 2025 following order had been passed:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for Stateopposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 in person.

¶9

First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No. 502 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.

¶10

As per contents of F.I.R., allegation levelled is that a forged and fabricated sale deed was executed on 20th August, 1971 the mutation of which was rejected on 7th September, 2020. Allegation levelled against the applicant is that she being mother-in-law of main accused Brijesh Kumar Awasthi is a gang member of the said person and is involved in fabrication of various such sale deeds.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant submits that she has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her and even otherwise there is no order of any competent court declaring the sale deed dated 20th August, 1971 as fabricated. It is submitted that dispute pertains only to a civil nature.

¶12

The informant in person as well as A.G.A. have opposed bail application with submission that the applicant has a long previous criminal history with regard to fabrication of various sale deeds and is in collusion with main accused Brijesh Kumar Awasthi, being his mother in law.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions submits that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation due to which charge sheet could not be filed.

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that primary gist of allegation at this stage has been levelled upon main accused Brijesh Kumar Awasthi of fabrication of sale deed, the mutation on the basis of which was sought after almost 50 years. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it to be a fit case of interim anticipatory bail.

¶16

Let the accused-applicant Usha Mishra ( in F.I.R. Usha Devi ) as an interim measure be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶17

In the event of arrest, the accused-applicant shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) That the accused-applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶19

(ii) In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶20

List this case on 19th May, 2025 in top ten category along with service report.

¶21

Objections may be filed in the meantime.

¶22

The applicant is directed to produce herself before the investigating officer on 12th May, 2025 at 2.00 P.M.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. shall obtain instructions whether the applicant has cooperated in the investigation or not."

¶24

In pursuance thereof, affidavits has been filed by the opposite party No.2 to submit that applicant in fact did not appear before the Investigating Officer on the date fixed.

¶25

Learned A.G.A. however has been provided written instructions by the Investigating Officer dated 27th May, 2025, which is taken on record, to the effect that applicant has not cooperated even after interim anticipatory granted to her and has not appeared for the purposes of providing statement.

¶26

Learned counsel for applicant however has disputed the said fact with submission that applicant in fact has appeared before the Investigating Officer on 26th May, 2025.

¶27

Earlier vide order dated 19th May, 2025, it has been noticed that the applicant admittedly did not appear before the Investigating Officer as was directed on account of the fact that she was unwell.

¶28

In view of aforesaid earlier order as well as the report submitted by the Investigating Officer dated 27th May, 2025, it is evident that applicant is misusing the interim anticipatory which has been granted to her.

¶29

In view thereof, this court does not find any ground to grant indulgence to the applicant. The anticipatory bail application therefore is rejected granting liberty to applicant to apply for regular bail.

¶30

Order Date :- 27.5.2025 prabhat

¶31

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

Usha Mishra ( in Fir Usha Devi ) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Mishra ( in Fir Usha Devi ) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Taufik Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and

Ved Prakash Mishra vs the Registrar General High Court at Allahabad and Another

Noor Mohammad @ Raja vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shiv Shanker Dubey Alias Chunmun vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Maheep Kumar Ojha vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home and Another