The Supreme Court today dismissed the bail application filed by former Uttar Pradesh MLA Vijay Mishra, who was expelled from the Nishad Party, accused in FIR registered under Sections 323, 506, 449, 347, 387, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B IPC and Section 66-C, 66-D Indian Information Technology Act.
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud refused to grant bail stating,
“This is not a fit case for bail. Special Leave petition is dismissed. However the plea can be revived once the recording of evidence is over.”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Mishra, had sought bail in view of contesting in the upcoming state Assembly elections 2022.
His earlier bail application filed before the Allahabad High Court was dismissed in view of number of pending criminal cases against him.
As per the facts mentioned in the impugned order of Allahabad High Court,
“Prosecution case, in nutshell, was that an F.I.R. was lodged on 4.8.2020 by the informant Krishan Mohan Tiwari against the applicants Ramlali Mishra and Vishnu Mishra mentioning therein that applicant is relative of the informant. After winning the election of block pramukh, he became active in politics. He has been forcibly residing in the house of the informant giving threats and torturing them. Informant was doing contractual work in different departments after establishing a Firm in his name. After some time, applicant took over the Firm of the informant in his hands and started doing all work himself. He also started depositing the money transactions in the account of his firm as well as in the account of his wife and son. He also took possession of all the documents forcibly after getting signatures on the cheques and using net banking for many transactions in the name of the informant. No information was given to the informant at any point of time regarding the earnings from contractual work. He always used to threaten the informant and his family of dire consequences. Since the applicant is a dreaded criminal, informant was not in a position to make complaint about the act committed on part of the applicant due to fear. He is not vacating the house in question which is occupied forcibly and giving threats to kill the informant and his family. Applicant is also pressurizing the informant to execute the Will in the name of son of the applicant. When the informant denied to do so, then threat was extended to him. Apprehension was shown in the F.I.R. that since applicant is a muscleman, informant is helpless, if applicant will be successful in his wrong deeds, informant will become landless. Thus prayer was made to take legal action for securing the life and property of the informant and his family members.”
The High Court had noted that,
“the first information report was lodged by one of the relative of the applicant. Number of criminal cases had been lodged against the applicant time to time. Some of them are still pending. Specific allegation in the complaint / F.I.R. has been made against the applicant that he obtained signatures on cheques putting pressure and threatening the informant. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. that the informant could not lodge the F.I.R. earlier due to fear and terror of the applicant. Thus, having considered the submissions raised across bar and going through the entire record and also looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, the apprehension shown by the informant in the F.I.R. cannot be denied particularly in view of criminal antecedents of the applicant. Thus, the Court is of the opinion that prayer made for bail in the application is not liable to be allowed and is hereby rejected.”