Sushil Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1972 of 2025

Sushil Kumar Mishra

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Mishra, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Piyush Tripathi, Sharad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 15

¶9

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶10

1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.589 of 2024 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar, district Lucknow.

¶11

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶12

3. It is alleged in the prosecution case that plot No.A5/149, measuring 1022 sq.metre, situate at Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow was allotted by Lucknow Development Authority in favour of Kailasha Devi. Registered sale deed was executed in her favour on 25.1.1997. Possession was given to her by Lucknow Development Authority. Kailasha Devi passed away in the year 2011. After that, the land got mutated in favour of her husband Narantan Singh Yadav. Since then, he is in possession of the land. After some days, it is alleged that some persons came at the plot and on enquiry, they told that the plot has been purchased from Kailasha Devi and the purchaser is Indrapratap Singh. Registered deed dated 25.1.1997 was shown. It is further alleged that the co-accused Indrapratap Singh has taken Rs.35 lacs from the complainant and Rs.35 lacs from Bagis Tiwari.

¶13

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Rs.35 lacs allegedly given by Bagish Tiwari has been returned by the co-accused Indrapratap

¶14

NABAIL No. 1972 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

Singh. He further submits that the applicant has filed registered sale deed dated 25.1.1997, contained in Annexure No.4 to the bail application. He has drawn attention of this court towards the signatures of the witnesses who are S.N.Chaurasiya and Praveen Trivedi.

¶17

It is further submitted that the applicant is neither seller nor purchaser nor witness in the said sale deed. He has been falsely implicated. The applicant has explained criminal history of 3 cases in para 35 of the bail application. The offences are triable by Magistrate, The dispute is primarily of civil nature.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶19

5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer made by applicant's counsel but could not dispute the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶20

6. Issue notice to respondent No.2.

¶21

7. List on 29.1.2026. In the meantime, learned A.G.A. shall file objections/counter affidavit.

¶22

8. Considering the above aspects of the matter, the fact that the applicant has explained criminal history, the offences are triable by Magistrate, the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he will cooperate in the investigation, perusal of the record, as also the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant protection to the applicant.

¶23

9. In view of the above, as an interim protection, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer/S.H.O.

¶24

The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within seven days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The investigating officer shall enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail, as directed above.

¶25

NABAIL No. 1972 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

10. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The applicant shall not leave India sans previous permission of the Court.

¶28

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law/ to move application for vacation of this order.

¶29

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶30

December 17, 2025 kkb/

¶31

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sushil Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Similar cases

Mahesh Kapoor vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ayush Tiwari Alias Ayush Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Ramsewak Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Indar Kumar @ Indal Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Shivakant Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Dabbu @ Ansh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.