Shushil Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1246 of 2025

Shushil Kumar Mishra

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Mishra, Ajay Kumar Verma, Piyush Tripathi, Shubham Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Gaurav Mani

¶7

Court No. - 13

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

¶10

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 0490/2024, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Dewa, District Barabanki.

¶11

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 23.07.2024 against 13 persons, including the applicant, stating that the informant and several other persons had made investments in 15 companies of Time City Group but no refund was paid to them on their investments.

¶12

In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶13

In para 26 of the affidavit, the applicant's involvement in 10 other cases has been disclosed and and the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was implicated in 11 cases simultaneously as all the cases are of similar nature, arising out of grievance of non payment of

¶14

NABAIL No. 1246 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

returns on the investments made in the Companies of Time City Group. In eight of the aforesaid cases, the applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail.

¶17

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant's name has surfaced in the F.I.R only because is a Director in the Company.

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that two coaccused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 16.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 617 of 2025.

¶19

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that the investigation in the matter is still going on. 9. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R has been lodged alleging non return of investments made in some companies and no civil proceedings have been instituted for recovery of the money; that the applicant has already been granted interim anticipatory bail in numerous other similar matters and that two co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail in the present case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶20

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Shushil Kumar Mishra before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶21

(i). that the applicant shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶22

(ii) that 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;

¶23

NABAIL No. 1246 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶26

(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and

¶27

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶28

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶29

September 18, 2025

¶30

Preeti

¶31

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shushil Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shushil Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

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

Mohd. Naushad Khan @ Sabi Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Raju @ Salman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shyam Sunder @ Shyam Sunder Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mohd. Altaf and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Mohammad Zafar Siddiqui @ Mohammad Zafar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Mohd. Altaf and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others