Rajeev Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87877

Court No. - 67

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12912 of 2025

Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Avneesh Kumar Mishra,Tanisha Jahangir Monir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶6

Instant application filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S seeking bail in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 17 of 2025, under Sections 316 (2), 319 (2), 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2) of B.N.S., Police Station Lalganj, District Mirzapur.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. He has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motive. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant is a Manager at Shiv Gulampur Toll Plaza. It is further submitted that first information report was lodged on 22.01.2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 316 (2), 319 (2), 318 (4), 338, 336 (3), 340 (2) of B.N.S., Police Station Laalganj, District Mirzapur against four accused persons including the applicant namely Alok Kumar Singh, Manish Mishra and Pankaj Shukla. As per prosecution story, information had been received by the police that toll charges had been unauthorisedly escalated to overcharge the citizen and cause a loss to the State exchequer on the Toll Plaza, Laalganj through installation of a dummy software in addition to the regular software uploaded on the digitised server of the toll plaza on the

¶8

national highway. On the said information the police has questioned the co-accused Alok Kumar Singh and he revealed that he had been involved in this illegal activities for the last two years. He has also admitted his involvement for the installation of said dummy software. After some investigation, the applicant has also been interrogated by the police as he was working as a Manager in the said Toll Plaza. It is vehemently submitted that applicant was not aware about the said installation as he has been appointed in the said Toll Plaza three months prior from the date of the complaint. It is also submitted that installation of the software as alleged was installed prior to his engagement or appointment on the said Toll Plaza, therefore, there are no credible material on record to connect the applicant in the instant case. It is also submitted that applicant is well rooted person in the society and he has no previous criminal antecedents. Applicant is permanent resident of address mentioned in the memo of bail application. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 22.01.2025. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed on 19.04.2025 and court concerned has taken cognizance on 21.04.2025. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant also undertaken that he will abide by all terms and conditions as imposed by this Court while granting bail. Learned counsel further submitted that considering the aforesaid facts, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State vehemently opposed the instant bail application contending that during investigation, the Investigating Agency has collected the credible evidence against the present applicant and submitted that being the Manager of said Toll Plaza, he was well aware about the installation of dummy software. He was very much involved in the

¶10

commission of said offence. However, he has not contradicted the facts as stated above by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and he was recently appointed in the said toll plaza.

¶11

Heard Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vijay Kumar Rathi, learned State Law Officer and perused the contents made in the first information report as well as material placed on record.

¶12

It is admitted fact that applicant is a man of clean antecedents and he is languishing in jail since 22.01.2025 i.e. about four months. Charge sheet has already been filed after completion of investigation. Cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. It is also undertaken on behalf of applicant on the instructions that he will abide by all terms and conditions as imposed by this Court while granting bail. No material brought on record by the learned A.G.A. that if the applicant is released on bail, he will misuse the bail condition. There are very dim chance of conclusion of trial in near future.

¶13

Taking into consideration the nature of offence and other reasons as stated above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Rajeev Kumar Mishra, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. 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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.5.2025 AKT

¶19

(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeev Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.

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