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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25274

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3658 of 2025

Applicant :- Mahendra Mishra @ Mahendra Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Pooja Singh,Abhishek Yadav,Anshuman Singh,Shivangi Paliwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.19 of 2025 under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 337, 339 & 341 BNS and 66(C) IT Act, 2008, P.S. Harraiya, District Balrampur.

¶8

As per contents of FIR which does not nominate the applicant, allegation levelled is of forgery pertaining to updation of Aadhar Cards in an illegal manner.

¶9

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that he is neither named in the FIR nor is there any alleged recovery from him pertaining to any instrument regarding illegal updation of Aadhar Cards. It is submitted that applicant has been nominated only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co-accused. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 18.02.2025 without any previous criminal history.

¶10

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that applicant's name has been introduced during the confessional statement of co-accused as being one of the person instrumental in illegal updation of Aadhar Cards. It is, however, admitted that the applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶11

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant

¶12

paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶13

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶14

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that applicant is neither nominated in the FIR nor is there any alleged recovery from him. His name appears to have been introduced on the basis of alleged confessional statement of co-accused. He is under incarceration since 18.02.2025 without any previous criminal history.

¶16

Considering the submissions of learned counsel 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.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant- Mahendra Mishra @ Mahendra Kumar Mishra involved in the aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(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.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case

¶21

of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS.

¶22

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under 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 209 BNS.

¶23

(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 351 BNSS. 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.

¶24

Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Satish

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Mishra @ Mahendra Kumar 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

Kaushal Kishor @ Sachin Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sagheer Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Kewal @ Ram Kewal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Jagannu @ Jagnu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Lale @ Chhotu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Naushad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Anothers