Vaishno Das Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application. The Court considered the applicant's submissions that he was a licensee under the Motor Vehicle Rules, possessed a GST invoice, and had permit conditions allowing him to conduct bookings. The Court also noted the applicant's assertion of no criminal antecedents, his cooperation with the investigation, and the discrepancy regarding the vehicle number in the FIR. The learned A.G.A. could not dispute these facts. In light of these considerations and the dictum of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98, the Court found it expedient in the interest of justice to protect the applicant's liberty. The applicant was to be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation with the investigation, presence when called, and not leaving India without prior court permission.

Facts

The applicant, Vaishno Das Mishra, filed an anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest in Case Crime No. 0577 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Ghazipur, Lucknow. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was illegally operating Shivani Transport Service Center, sending passengers on buses without permits and extracting illegal money. The informant, along with ARTO and police personnel, found two buses with passengers who stated they were charged individually. The applicant claimed to be a licensee under Section 124 of the Motor Vehicle Rules 1988, possessed a GST invoice for a service center run by his son, and had permission to do bookings from his office as per UPSRTC permit conditions. He asserted no involvement in the alleged illegal activities, was not present at the spot, had no criminal antecedents, and the vehicle number in the FIR was for a two-wheeler. He undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in light of the allegations of operating a transport service without a permit and extracting illegal money, and the applicant's defense. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: The applicant argued that he is a licensee under Section 124 of the Motor Vehicle Rules 1988, possesses a GST invoice for a related service center, and has permit conditions allowing bookings from his office. He denied any involvement, stated he was not present at the spot, had no criminal antecedents, and the FIR mentioned a two-wheeler. He undertook to cooperate with the investigation. The applicant relied on the dictum of the Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98. Revenue/State: The learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer but could not dispute the facts presented by the applicant.