Allahabad High Court
Mrinal Mishra vs State Of U.P. on 19 October, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10154 of 2022
Applicant :- Mrinal Mishra
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Babu Sharma,Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Ram Babu Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.115 of 2019, under Sections 409, 504, 506 and 120B IPC at Police Station- Rajepur, District Farrukhabad with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
The applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 10.01.2022 by this Court and he has not misused the said liberty granted to him.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is a bank employee and has acted in a bona fide manner. The closure report was filed by the police twice, but under the duress of the informant, the said charge-sheet has been filed. The said charge-sheet is not sustainable under law as there is enough evidence on record to suggest that the applicant has done no mala fide act. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Mrinal Mishra be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. 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;
3. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
5. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
6. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.
Order Date :- 19.10.2022
Ravi Kant
