Girja Shankar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7762

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11951 of 2024

Applicant :- Girja Shankar Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Srees Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Tewari,Shailendra Agnihotri

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, advocate holding brief of Sri Amit Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 616 of 2023 under sections 419, 420, 506 and 120-B of IPC, P.S.- Gangaghat District -Unnao.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is not involved in committing the offence and there is no cogent piece of evidence against him. He submits that in fact the sale deed is executed in the name of other persons and the applicant is neither vendor, vendee nor the marginal witness. He also added that the applicant is no way beneficiary of the sale deed in question and the only allegation against him is that he was involved with the other co-accused persons for committing the offence. He also submits that the applicant has explained the criminal history in the bail application as well as in the rejoinder affidavit and chargesheet has been filed and thus, there is no possibility that he would tamper the evidence or would threaten the witnesses. He further submits that the applicant is a law-abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 04.01.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is not named in the first information report and after

¶10

thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant is a key player and he has criminal history and therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

¶11

Learned AGA appearing for the State has also supported the version of counsel for the complainant and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶12

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.01.2024; criminal history of the applicant has satisfactorily been explained; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence; chargesheet has been filed in the case coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Girja Shankar Mishra involved in the aforementioned crime 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:-

¶15

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶16

(2) 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. He 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 Code;

¶17

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶18

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Mayank

¶22

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

Girja Shankar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girja Shankar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

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

Mitthu @ Mithun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Arun Kumar Dixit @ Arun Dixit @ Ramu Dixit Vs the State of U.P.

Shashank Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Deptt. of Revenue Intelligence Lko

Ratna Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Karan Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Siddhant Kanaujia @ Siddhant vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another