Supreme Court: In a special leave petition filed against the judgment of Allahabad High Court, wherein the Court rejected a 71-year-old woman application for anticipatory bail in a forgery case, the three-judge bench of Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. took strong exception to the conduct of respondent 2, a practicing advocate, who was found to be evading service in a case pertaining to an FIR lodged at his instance. The FIR alleged forgery of a sale deed dated 21-08-1971, and was registered in 2023, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings against a 71-year-old woman.
Taking note of the situation, the Court issued bailable warrants in the sum of ₹10,000 with equal surety to secure the presence of respondent 2 on 08-10-2025, and directed the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, to execute the same. The Court further made it clear that if the respondent showed reluctance in accepting the notice, his presence would be secured through non-bailable warrants.
Additionally, the Court directed respondent 2 to show cause as to why exemplary costs should not be imposed upon him for lodging the belated FIR regarding a transaction dating back over five decades.
The Bench expressed its disappointment with the Allahabad High Court’s decision to reject the petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail, observing that the petitioner, a 71-year-old woman, was neither the seller, purchaser, witness, nor a beneficiary of the impugned sale deed. The Court noted that the High Court’s casual approach in passing the impugned order warranted serious introspection, though it refrained from commenting further at that stage.
The matter was directed to be listed on 08-10-2025, and in the interim, the arrest of the petitioner was stayed.
The Court also clarified that no counter affidavit was required from the State. However, the SHO of the police station concerned was directed to produce the original records leading to the registration of FIR and to show cause why the proceedings, prima facie appearing to be an abuse of process of law should not be quashed.
[Usha Mishra v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2023, decided on 17-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Amit Sangwan, Adv., Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR, Ms. Shivangi Singh, Adv., Mr. Ashu Bhindwar, Adv., Mr. Jai Inder Sharma, Adv., Mr. Jay Veer Yadav, Adv.
