Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 155103 (ALL)

SURESH CHANDRA MISHRA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME LKO.

ABAIL/836/2025 · 2025-08-07

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45921 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 836 of 2025 Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Prabhu Ranjan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1.The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.45 of 2013 under sections 302, 395 IPC, P.S. Musafirkhana, district Amethi. 2.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 3.It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that initially, a written report was given and after more than one month, first information report was registered. Earlier, an application was filed under section 482 CrPC No.1824 of 2014 Suresh Chandra Mishra versus The State of U.P. and another wherein interim protection was granted by a coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 23.4.2014. The said petition came to be decided on 22.11.2023. Again, another application under section 482 CrPC No.4316 of 2024 Suresh Chandra Mishra versus The State of U.P. and two others was filed by the applicant which was disposed of vide order dated 10.5.2024. The coordinate Bench of this court while observing that there is no merit in the case has directed the applicant to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within four weeks from 10.5.2024, i.e. the date of the order. Today, present anticipatory bail filed on 25.7.2025 is being argued. Clearly, the applicant has not complied with the directions given by the coordinate Bench of this court in the aforesaid 482 CrPC petition No.4316 of 2024 (supra). Even otherwise, there is eye witness account of Safique Ahmad and another prosecution witness who have seen the applicant giving liquor to the deceased and further seen the applicant mixing some powder in the drink of the deceased. Learned court below has rejected the anticipatory bail on the ground that the charge sheet was filed in 2016. Since then, the applicant has not appeared in the court. Clearly, the applicant has not cooperated in the trial. The applicant has also not complied the directions of the coordinate Bench of this court in order dated 10.5.2024 as no bail application was filed within the prescribed time. 4.At this stage, present anticipatory bail application is pressed on the ground that the applicant is on the last stage of cancer and is admitted in cancer institute. However, on being asked, learned counsel for the applicant could not show from the record that the applicant is admitted in any cancer institute or it is the last stage of cancer, although some prescription papers have been placed on record. 5. This court further finds that in the viscera report, aluminium phosphide and ethyl alcohol has been found. The offence is punishable with capital punishment. It is a heinous offence. Prima facie, complicity of the accused applicant is evident. It cannot be said that it is a case of false implication. 6.No case for anticipatory bail is made out. The application is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 kkb/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench