Dharmendra Kumar Mishra @ Babban Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10125

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1232 of 2025

Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Mishra @ Babban Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present applicant is in jail since 28.12.2024, in case crime no. 391 of 2024, under Section 25(8) of Arms Act at Police Station Para District Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant has been falsely implicated as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards impugned FIR, wherein, the allegations have been levelled against five accused persons including the present applicant. As per the prosecution story, eight illegal pistol and 16 magazine of .32 bore were recovered from one Swift Dezire car. The present applicant was not sitting in that car nor had anything to do with the weapons seized from that car. As per the prosecution story, the present applicant was prospective buyer of one of the weapon. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant and the prosecution is having no material or evidence to show that the present applicant had asked the other accused person who were carrying the aforesaid weapons to provide one of the weapon to the present applicant. As a matter of fact, the present applicant has been implicated only on the basis of the statement of the coaccused person who was said to have possessed such weapons. This Court had granted bail to one of the co-accused person, namely, Shailendra Sharma in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12407 of 2024 vide order dated 02.12.2024 who was present in that Swift Dezire car, therefore, the case of the present applicant is on better footing than the case of Shailendra Sharma. Sri Ramakar Shukla has stated that the present applicant should have not been implicated in this case has the possession of the weapon should be sole consideration to implicate any person which would not be applicable so far as the present applicant is concerned. The learned counsel for the

¶9

applicant has explained his criminal history while preparing a chart in paragraph 34 of the bail application. Further, Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards a dictum of Apex Court passed in re:- Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , wherein vide paragraph 7, the Apex Court has observed that the criminal history of an accused may not be the sole consideration to deny bail. Investigation is going on and he undertakes that he shall cooperate in the investigation. The learned counsel has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he shall shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicant shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned AGA for the State has also opposed the bail application but could not dispute the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Without entering into merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR and the fact that the present applicant is languishing in jail since 28.12.2024; the case of the present applicant is on better footing than the case of Shailendra Sharma since, Shailendra Sharma who was present in the Swift Dezire car from where the weapons have been recovered has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12407 of 2024 vide order dated 02.12.2024 and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶12

The bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant- Dharmendra Kumar Mishra @ Babban Mishra, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶14

(i) 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.

¶15

(ii) 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

¶16

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) 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 applicants fail 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.

¶18

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Anurag

¶20

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

Dharmendra Kumar Mishra @ Babban Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Kumar Mishra @ Babban Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

Gulshan vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Dev Mani Mishra and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Baburam Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dharmendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Smt. Afsari Khatoon Alias Gudia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Triveni Prasad @ Laddan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.