SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Surya Bhan Mishra (Second Bail … vs State Of U.P. on 16 December, 2019


?Court No. – 27

Case :- BAIL No. – 11191 of 2019

Applicant :- Surya Bhan Mishra (Second Bail Application)

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Ayodhya Prasad Mishra,S.K. Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This is second bail application. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.08.2017 passed in Bail No.5790 of 2016.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that matter is triable by Magistrate. Chargesheet in the matter has already been filed. Applicant is in jail since 31.03.2016. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that till date prosecution has not been able to examine a single prosecution witness and after submission of the chargesheet custody of the applicant is not wanted for any other purpose. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that co-accused Jaikar Mishra has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2019 passed in Bail No.4591 of 2017. He further submits that although the matter is purely of civil nature however even as per the allegation of the F.I.R. the complainant has invested Rs.16,00,000/- for purchasing a plot in the applicant’s company Ujala Infratech Private Limited and admittedly registry and mutation of that plot has been done. However allegedly the possession of the plot has not been given by applicant to the complainant. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that he is ready to deliver possession of the plot after released from jail. He further submits that maximum punishment provided under Section 420 I.P.C. is seven years and three years under Section 406 I.P.C. and the applicant has been incarcerated for a period of about three years and nine months which is more than half of the punishment and, therefore, he is entitled to protection of Section 436-A Cr.P.C.

It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

Let the applicant, Surya Bhan Mishra involved in Case Crime No. 73/2016, under Sections 406/Section420 IPC, Police Station – Vikas Nagar, District – Lucknow 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

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

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

(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.

(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.

(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 Indian Penal Code.

(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. 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 Indian Penal Code.

(vii) In view of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for applicant on behalf of the applicant, it is provided that the applicant shall enter into a compromise/settlement with the complainant within six months from the date of release from jail.

Order Date :- 16.12.2019




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation