[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Usha Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 16 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:26373
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1903 of 2024
Usha Mishra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Vijay Nath Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Dadu Ram Shukla (D.R. Shukla )
Court No. - 28
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Dadu Ram Shukla, complainant/opposite party no.2-in person, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. The present application under Section 438 Cr.PC./482 BNSS has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/FIR No.0031 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 & 166 I.P.C., under Section 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station- S.I.T., District- Lucknow.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an old lady aged about 75 years and suffering from old age diseases. He further submits that as per allegation in another FIR No.243 of 2015, the applicant by committing fraud got executed the sale deed of the property of the complainant in her name and after purchasing the land, the applicant applied for mutation and her name has been mutated in the revenue record, but the applicant is neither a seller nor purchaser nor marginal witness of the said sale-deed. She is also not the beneficiary of the alleged sale deed and she has been falsely implicated in the present case.
4. He further submits that the applicant being the recorded tenure holder of the same property had executed the registered will deed in favour of one Salik Ram on 22.09.2018 and Salik Ram had executed the will deed in favour of one Raj Kumar Lal on 18.05.2021. He further submits that the applicant committed no offence as alleged in the impugned FIR, but there are some dispute between son-in-law of the applicant and complainant due to which she has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that criminal history of six cases of the applicant is explained in para no.22 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application and criminal history of ten other cases is duly explained in para no.2 to the synopsis of criminal history filed on 13.03.2026 and copy of bail orders are annexed collectively as Annexure No.1.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant approached the Hon'ble Apex Court, which, vide order dated 27.05.2025, was pleased to stay the arrest of the applicant till the decision of the anticipatory bail application pending before this Court.
6. On the other hand, Shri Dadu Ram Shukla, opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and stated that the applicant in collusion with co-accused- Brijesh Kumar Awasthi @ Bablu and Salikram Singh has committed fraud by executed the sale deed of the property of the complainant in her name and thereafter got it mutated in her name. Further, he placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Mittal Vs. Ajay Pal Gupta alias Sonu Chaudhary & another, AIR 2026 SC 117 especially on para 20 and 21, which are being reproduced below. "20. In the case on hand, the investigation against respondent No.1, as is borne out by the counter affidavit filed by the State, clearly demonstrates that he is a habitual offender. The number of diverse and unconnected aliases, fake IDs and the deliberate changes of identity, including his father?s name, clearly manifest his nefarious intention to dupe innocent victims and cheat them. 21. Further, the fact that respondent No.1 was granted bail earlier but chose to indulge in the same activities once again, resulting in the registration of multiple FIRs over the years, demonstrates that he is a career criminal and a menace to society. The impugned order reflects that his past antecedents were not even taken into consideration. Similarly, his conduct in the context of the pending case was not noted. Having secured bail in relation to FIR No. 229 of 2017, respondent No.1 chose to abscond, resulting in issuance of a non-bailable warrant, which also brought to light the fact that his surety was not to be found."
7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties as well as opposite party no.3, appearing in person, and further taking into account that the applicant is the mother-in-law of the main accused, namely Brijesh Kumar Awasthi @ Babloo, who is alleged to have committed fraud in the name of the present applicant; it is evident from the record that the statement of the applicant has been recorded and forms part of the case diary, wherein she has categorically denied the allegations levelled in the FIR. The applicant has further stated that the photograph affixed to the alleged sale deed does not belong to her and that she neither executed any sale deed in favour of Opposite Party No. 3 nor any will deed in favour of Salikram Singh.
8. It is also noteworthy that the applicant is an elderly lady aged about 73 years, and she has undertaken to cooperate in the trial proceedings. The criminal history attributed to the applicant, comprising six cases, has been duly explained in paragraph no.22 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, and the additional ten cases have been explained in paragraph no.2 of the synopsis of criminal history filed on 13.03.2026, with copies of the bail orders annexed collectively as Annexure No.1.
9. So far as the reliance placed on the case of Rakesh (supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court therein dealt with the issue in the context of a "habitual offender." However, in the present case, multiple FIRs have been lodged by the same two or three individuals, but conviction has not been awarded in any of the case lodged against her. The mere registration of multiple FIRs by the same persons would not be sufficient to categorize the applicant as a "habitual offender." Accordingly, the said judgment is distinguishable on facts and is of no assistance to the complainant/opposite party no.2.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to protect the liberty of the applicant.
11. In view of the above, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Usha Mishra shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid Case Crime number on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person familiar with the facts of the case in a manner that may dissuade her from revealing such facts before the Court or result in tampering with the evidence;
(ii) The applicant shall not travel outside India without prior permission from the Court;
(iii) The applicant shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any prosecution witness;
(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless specifically exempted from personal appearance;
(v) In the event of any violation of the aforementioned conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;
Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.
12. It is made clear that the observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
13. The anticipatory bail application is, accordingly, allowed.
(Rajeev Bharti,J.)
April 16, 2026
Anand/-
