Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2025BAIL/10117/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant allegedly posed as an exorcist under a false name, took Rs. 11 lakhs promising to cure the complainant's wife's kidney through exorcism, and gave a fake golden brick worth Rs. 1 crore. Not named in the FIR and with co-accused already bailed, he was granted conditional bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering, intimidation and adjournment-seeking.

Saurabh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10117 of 2025

Saurabh Mishra

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.	Govt. Of .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Amit Kumar Awasthi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶10

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant introduced himself as Sanjay Yadav and assured the complainant that the kidney of his wife would be cured by some exorcism, for which roughly an expense of Rs. 10-15 lakhs would be incurred. It is further alleged that Rs. 11 lakhs has been taken from the complainant by the applicant and in lieu thereof, a golden brick worth Rs. 1 crore was given to the complainant, which was found to be fake.

¶11

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The named accused persons namely Irfan and Baba Isa Ali @ Isha Ali have been granted bail by co-ordinate bench of this court vide orders dated 01.08.2025 and 09.09.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 6283 of 2025 and 8515 of 2025 respectively, the bail orders are annexed as Annexure no. 13 and 14 to the affidavit filed along with the bail application.

¶12

The case of the applicant is on the better footing than that of co-accused Irfan. The alleged recovery of Rs. 2500/- from the applicant is false and there is no material evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. The applicant has no criminal history and no incriminating article has been made recovered from the possession of the applicant.

¶13

It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the investigation. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

BAIL No. 10117 of 2025

¶15

¶16

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also the period for which the applicant is in jail i.e. since 13.09.2025; as also the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents; the fact that co-accused persons namely Irfan and Baba Isa Ali @ Isha Ali have been granted bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant Saurabh Mishra, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 158 of 2025, Under Sections- 318(4), 319(2), 308(5), 316(2) B.N.S., Police StationNighasan, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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 in accordance with law.

¶25

(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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 IPC (now Section

¶26

BAIL No. 10117 of 2025

¶27

¶28

209 of BNS).

¶29

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶30

October 16, 2025 DiVYa

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Bunty Mandal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Santosh Mandal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ansit Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Vikas Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Md. Zaid (Fir Name Zaid @ Raja) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Usman Khan @ Usman and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another