Raju Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35544

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5014 of 2025

Applicant :- Raju Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tripathi,Ashish Raman Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manish Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.61 of 2025 under Sections 318 (4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS, Police Station Khargupur, District Gonda, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in jail since 05.04.2025. He further submitted that he does not have any criminal antecedent and he is ready to co-operate in trial proceedings. He next submitted that co-accused- Amit Kashyap, having identical role, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2025 passed in Crl.Misc. Bail Application no. 4810 of 2025. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail. They jointly submitted that as per prosecution case, sufficient evidence is found against the applicant who is the kingpin with regard to preparation of the forged documents. However, they did not dispute this facts that co-accused- Amit Kashyap, having identical role, has already been enlarged on bail.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., other relevant documents as well as totality of fact and circumstances, it is evident that co-accused- Amit Kashyap, having identical role, has already been enlarged on bail. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

The bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let applicant - Raju Mishra - be released on bail in

¶13

aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶15

(ii) 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.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶17

(iv) 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 under Section 229-A IPC.

¶18

(v) 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., may be issued and if 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.

¶19

(vi) 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. 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 12.6.2025 Satish

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Vishal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Indu Dhar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Shiva Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pradeep Singh Alias Baba vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another