Allahabad High Court
Ankit Mishra vs State Of U.P. on 6 May, 2025
Author: Ashutosh Srivastava
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79237 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10219 of 2025 Applicant :- Ankit Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Asheesh Kumar Tiwari,Sandeep Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Alka Upadhyay,G.A.,Manish Tiwari Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
1. Learned counsel for the first informant has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Sandeep Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Alka Upadhyay, learned counsel for the first informant, Shri Shashank Singh, Advocate, holding brief of learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.
3. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of applicant, Ankit Mishra, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 503 of 2024, under Sections 318 (4), 308 (5) BNS and Section 66D I.T. Act, Police Station- Nai Mandi, District- Muzaffar Nagar.
4. The allegation made in the FIR is that the applicant introduced himself as SPG Commando in the security of Hon'ble Prime Minister and therefore he has access to several ministries of the Central Government and the applicant has uploaded his photo in proper dress of SPG Commando on the whats app number of the first informant. It is further alleged that after getting all the information and economic status of his family members, the applicant started harassing and threatening his wife and demanded Rs. six lakhs saying that if the same is not fulfilled, he will commit murder of her husband and sons.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case crime number and is languishing in jail since 24.02.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no date and time of alleged incident and its FIR was lodged on 25.10.2024 at 19:27 hours without any plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. It is next submitted that the notice under Section 35(3) BNSS has been served upon him. It is submitted that the wife of the informant and the applicant were well known to each other since long and dealing with the astrology profession. He further submits that the wife of the first informant pressurized the applicant to work only with her and the same has been refused by the applicant, the informant has lodged the FIR against the applicant on the basis of false and frivolous allegation. There are various contradiction in the statements of witnesses, prosecutrix and the FIR version. It is further submitted that neither the applicant has cheated anyone nor he has impersonated the identity to the informant's wife, as alleged. He further submits that the applicant is indulging in the profession of astrology with his nick name Atul Mishra whereas Atul Mishra and Ankit Mishra are one and the same person. It has been further argued that during judicial custody, the applicant's health started deteriorating and his condition became worse and during treatment, the doctor founds that both the kidneys of the applicant are not properly functioning. For the said reason he was referred to higher center for treatment of kidneys and for dialysis. It is next submitted that nothing material is available on record with regard to date and time of the incident and threatening in the statements of prosecutrix, informant and his father, hence no case is made out under Section 308 (5) of BNS and, therefore, the prosecution story is contradictory and unreliable. There is no motive against the applicant to commit such crime. He has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with the evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
6. Per contra learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the applicant was taken from Muzaffarnagar jail to Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Hospital, Meerut, on 08.03.2025 as had cited his poor health condition and was admitted there on the said date. Surprisingly, applicant got himself discharged on 09.03.2025 and, thereafter, the applicant and his wife made a joint request to take him to AIIMS, Delhi, but the applicant was sent to Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences Delhi, for treatment. The medical report dated 10.08.2025, annexed by the applicant in his support, has no mention of alleged medical dialysis or any kidney disease. On the basis of medical report dated 10.08.2025, he was sent back to Meerut, where on medical examination, it was found that the applicant is not suffering with any kidney disease and the report is normal, which shows that the applicant has committed fraud. It is next submitted that applicant Ankit Mishra and Atul Mishra both are two separate persons. Atul Mishra is a well known astrologer and Ankit Mishra is using his identity to cheat and commit fraud with innocent people like the wife of the informant and he is involved in fraud by making his UPI A/c in the name of Atul Mishra, but the account in which the money is being deposited is in the name of Ankit Mishra and applicant has motive to obtain financial gain by any means and has a tendency to frequently change his identity for such purpose. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity.
7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima facie, the involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence.
9. In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out.
10. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.
11. It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the trial of the case.
Order Date :- 6.5.2025 v.k.updh.