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

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0634 of 2024, under section 70(2), 316(2), 352, 351 (3) BNS, Section 5(G)/6 POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(da)(dha), 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Ramsanehighat, District Barabanki.

¶13

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the informant's minor daughter was physically exploited by Hariom Mishra after trapping her. It is further alleged that thereafter, Mahesh Mishra, resident of the same address also trapped the minor daughter of the informant and continued to physically exploit her. It is alleged that both the applicant and Hariom Mishra, on separate occasions, took approximately Rs.2,00,000 each from the victim, which belonged to the informant and was part of his business earnings.

¶14

It is further alleged that on coming to know of these incidents, and fearing social disgrace, the informant arranged the marriage of his daughter in District Bahraich. However, Mahesh Mishra allegedly interfered in her matrimonial home, instigated her, and disclosed their illicit relationship

¶15

BAIL No. 6200 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

before her in-laws, while promising to marry her. Consequently, the victim's husband left her.

¶18

It is further alleged that when the informant went to Mahesh Mishra's house to discuss the matter and, in view of the broken marriage and disclosure of illicit relations, proposed that Mahesh Mishra marry his daughter, Mahesh Mishra and his family members abused the informant and his daughter with caste-related slurs, threatened to kill them if they came there again.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, as per the educational record, the date of birth of the victim is 01.06.2008, whereas, as per the radio-logical examination, she is found to be 18 years of age. It is further submitted that although the victim supported the prosecution case in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, however, before the trial court she has turned hostile. He further submits that co-accused Hariom Mishra against whom similar allegations have been levelled has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7580 of 2025. Applicant seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused Hariom Mishra (supra).

¶20

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer however, does not dispute the fact that the victim has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case.

¶21

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record.

¶22

On due consideration of the facts that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; the victim has turned hostile; has been examined before the learned court below, there appears to be no chance of tampering with the evidence, the applicant is in jail since 20.11.2024; and that and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant Mahesh Mishra be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶25

BAIL No. 6200 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶28

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶29

(iii) 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.

¶30

(iv) 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.

¶31

(v) 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 of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶32

(vi) 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. (now 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 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶33

August 28, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶34

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mahesh Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Aman Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

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

Chandan @ Chandra Kishor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhotelal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Indresh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shiv Prasad Yadav Alias Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru Its Secy Ministry of Home Affairs Civil Sectt Lko