Dismissed

Arpit Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2018BAIL/39308/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court rejected the request for anticipatory bail. The applicant claimed false implication and lack of incriminating material, while the State argued for high-handedness and recovery of fake ID and Aadhaar documents. Despite the offense being triable by a first-class magistrate, the court found no good grounds for bail given the gravity of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; no order passed at this stage.

Arpit Gupta Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 60

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39308 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Arpit Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.455 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 65, 66 I.T. Act, 2000 and Section 36 and 42 of Aadhaar Act, Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the informant in the above case crime number. He further adds that applicant is simply a worker in the concerned shop in question and he has no concern with the offence in question. He further submits that the police has planted false recovery against the applicant. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Offence is triable by Magistrate First Class. His name has been falsely dragged in this case due to ulterior motive of the informant. He is a law abiding citizen and in case, applicant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of absconding or misusing the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that name of the applicant has surfaced during

¶9

course of investigation. He further submits that it is the high- handedness of the applicant and his associate shopkeeper- Aman Maurya, who obtained fake I.D. and issued fake Aadhaar Card. He submits that applicant is arrested on the spot and a number of incriminating material has been recovered from the shop of the applicant. Lastly, he submits that the guilt of the applicant is clearly established.

¶10

After hearing the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant and the reply by the learned A.G.A. and upon perusal of the various documents annexed with the present bail application and also looking to the allegations made in the FIR, and considering the gravity of the offence, no good ground is made out for bail.

¶11

Accordingly, this bail application is rejected at this stage.

¶12

The observation so made in the body of this order shall not prejudice proceeding of the trial court while deciding the case on merit. Order Date :- 19.12.2018 Raj

Arpit Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arpit Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meena Devi @ Munni Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Rana @ Vinnu Rana Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Intezar Vs State of U.P.

Ankur Singh Vs State of U.P.