Upendra Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6937 of 2025

Upendra Kumar Mishra

		Versus		.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.				.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Samiksha Chaturvedi, Sr.	Chaturv Advoc	edi, Saurabh ate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A., Rajesh Pandey, Vivek	Kumar Tiwari	Mishra, Vikrant

¶5

Court No. - 67

¶6

HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

¶7

Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, Sri Vikrant Pandey, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 209 of 2024, under Sections- 302, 392 and 411 IPC, Police Station- Brahmpuri, District- Merut, during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been falsely implicated, though, there is no incriminating material against him. The applicant is not named in the FIR whereas the allegation has been made against unknown persons. As per FIR, when the first informant entered in his house, he was informed that his wife has died at 8.40 a.m. on 21.06.2024 and his licencee revolver was also in her hand and the almirah was broken and money and jewellery were also spread on the floor. In his statement, the first informant did not make any allegation against the applicant or any other person except he found a motorcycle near his house. Subsequently, on the basis of CCTV footage it was found that one person, though, having masked, appears to be similar to the applicant, was going through motorcycle and then took e- rickshaw to proceed further. The statements of two witnesses, namely, Anil and Amit have been recorded after one and half months of the incident, who have stated that they had seen the applicant near the house of the first informant on his motorcycle. Thereafter some jewellery belonging to the deceased was

¶10

BAIL No. 6937 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

shown to be recovered from the applicant. During investigation, it was also found that though, there was CCTV in the house of the first informant but the DVR was missing. Such fact was not mentioned in the FIR or in the statement of the first informant. Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no eye witness of the incident. As per postmortem report, the deceased died due to gun shot injury and she was also having incised wound on her neck. There is no recovery of any weapon on the pointing out of the applicant. It is submitted that though in the FIR as well as statements it was mentioned that money and jewellery were scattered on the floor near the dead body of the deceased. Subsequently, 3 articles of jewelry were shown to be recovered from the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant was seen with mask in CCTV footage and no one could identify him. Merely on the basis of identification of shoes, he cannot be implicated. It is lastly submitted that a total of 39 witnesses are proposed to be examined but till date, only nine witnesses have been examined. There is no apprehension of tempering with any evidence and even otherwise the trial will take time to be concluded, as the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 27.06.2024. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there are two witnesses, who had seen the applicant near the house. The first informant went to his village with the deceased and after completing rituals returned back and then the witnesses recorded their statements. It is further submitted that though, the applicant was masked but he appears to be similar to the applicant. The applicant is not entitled to be released on bail

¶14

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that there is no eye-witness and that the CCTV installed in the house of the deceased, was not mentioned in the FIR or statement of the first informant and after incident no witness came forward to identify the applicant, though, two witnesses produced after one and half months of the incident and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts

¶15

BAIL No. 6937 of 2025

¶16

3

¶17

as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2016 Supreme Court 1178 and Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant - Upendra Kumar Mishra involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶19

i. 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.

¶20

ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶21

iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶22

iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.

¶23

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

¶24

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶25

Verification of mobile number and Aadhar card of the applicant as well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.

¶26

It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

¶27

BAIL No. 6937 of 2025

¶28

4

¶29

It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.

¶30

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685.

¶31

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

¶32

April 20, 2026 gp

¶33

Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Upendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.

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

Amzad Ali and 5 Others vs 1/1. Khairunnisha and Others

Mohd Asif @ Durrani vs State of U.P.

Vimlesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Adil Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Vs State of U.P.

Kavi Chandra Vs State of U.P.