Binam Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Singh and Shri Janardan Singh, learned counsels for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶13

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 144 of 2025 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(2) BNS, Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow.

¶14

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant, being the Director of a real estate company, had earlier sold a plot/house to another person and thereafter executed a sale in respect of the same property in favour of the complainant.

¶15

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that, as per the case diary it has come during investigation that the earlier sale deed executed by the applicant pertained to Gata Nos. 34 and 40, whereas, as per the admitted case of the prosecution in the FIR, the present transaction relates to Gata Nos. 29, 30, and 33 Ka. It is thus contended that both transactions relate to different properties and no offence is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is a lady.

¶16

It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence and, in case she is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that although the Gata numbers are different, the property in question is the same plot/house No. 10, which has been

¶18

BAIL No. 1366 of 2026

¶19

2

¶20

sold twice by the applicant by committing forgery. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. The applicant has explained her criminal history of five cases in paragraph 15 of the bail application.

¶21

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

¶22

Perused the record.

¶23

On due consideration of the facts that the applicant is a lady and is in judicial custody since 25.07.2025; the offences are triable by a Magistrate and the charge-sheet has already been filed; no material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the applicant, if released on bail, would tamper with evidence or influence witnesses 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.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶25

Let the applicant Binam Mishra , involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case crime number, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶26

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶27

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶28

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶29

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶30

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶31

March 17, 2026 Madhu J.R/P.S

¶32

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Binam Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binam Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. 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

Similar cases

Chinta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahar Lko. and 5 Others

Shivmohan @ Jhabbu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Sriram vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Shubh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Homelko.

Sanjay Prasad @ Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Police Lko. and 3 Others

Dharmendra Kumar vs U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission Thru. Chairman Lko.