Vaishno Das Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. Of U.P. Lucknow

Facts

The applicant, Vaishno Das Mishra, filed an anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest in a case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was illegally operating a transport service, Shivani Transport Service Center, sending passengers on buses without permits and collecting illegal money. The informant, along with ARTO and police, found two buses with passengers who stated they had paid for individual tickets. The applicant claimed to be a licensee under the Motor Vehicle Rules 1988, possessing a GST invoice for a service center run by his son, and argued that his permit allowed him to do bookings from his office. He asserted no involvement, absence from the spot, and no criminal antecedents. The charge sheet had been filed.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. The primary reasoning was the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents, his cooperation with the investigation, and his undertaking to cooperate with the trial. The Court also noted that the vehicle number mentioned in the FIR was of a two-wheeler, which seemed inconsistent with the allegations of operating buses. The Court relied on the Apex Court's dictum in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi). The applicant was directed to surrender before the trial court if summoned and to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties. Specific conditions were imposed, including not tampering with evidence, not leaving India without permission, not intimidating witnesses, and appearing on each date fixed for trial. The trial court was given liberty to cancel bail for breach of conditions and to impose other reasonable restrictions. The observations made in granting bail were not to affect the trial judge's independent opinion.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of operating a transport service without a permit and collecting illegal money, and the filing of a charge sheet. The applicant argued that he holds a valid license under Section 124 of the Motor Vehicle Rules 1988, possesses a GST invoice for a related service, and his permit allows him to conduct bookings from his office. He contended he was not present at the spot, has no criminal history, and undertakes to cooperate with the trial. The State (Opposite Party) opposed the bail application, but conceded the applicant's lack of criminal history. The complainant's counsel also opposed the application.