Allowed

Deen Dayal Gupta and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2019BAIL/37201/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. 75 disposed of a bail application filed by Deen Dayal Gupta and Pintu Gupta in a case under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, involving alleged petrol theft. The court released the applicants on bail subject to furnishing personal bonds and local sureties along with specific undertakings regarding court appearances.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two local sureties each of the like amount.

Deen Dayal Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37201 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Deen Dayal Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sheo Ram Singh,Ravindra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sheo Ram Singh and Mr. Ravindra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Anand Mishra, learned counsel for the State-opposite party as well as perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants-Deen Dayal Gutpa and Pintu Gupta with a prayer to enlarge them on bail in Case Crime No. 232 of 2019, under Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station-Gauri Bazar, District-Deoria, during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the first information report has been lodged by Akhilesh Mandal, Senior Depot Manager on 19th June, 2019 against unknown person alleging therein that on 17th June, 2019, it has been brought to the notice of the first informant that some petrol was stolen on the way from the vehicles carrying petrols of the department. It has also been brought to the notice of the first informant that the stolen petrol was sold. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. the applicants have not been named in the first information report. During investigation, their names have surfaced. It has been alleged by the prosecution that on the basis of confessional statements of the applicants, alleged recovery of 100 to 150 litres of diesel have been shown from the houses of the applicants. It is argued that the alleged recovery shown from the house of the applicant is planted one. The applicants have not given any confessional statements. Apart from the above, the confessional statements have no relevance. Except the confessional statements, there is no public or independent witness on the basis of which it can be said that the applicants are involved in the commission of the alleged offence. It is further

¶8

submitted that for the same alleged recovery of diesels, the applicants have been implicated in another case being Case Crime No. 229 of 2019 under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C. in which they been enlarged on bail by the court below vide order dated 18th July, 2019, a copy of the bail order has been brought on record at page-121 of the paper book. Learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, prays that since for the same alleged recovery, they have already been enlarged on bail, they are also liable to be enlarged on bail in this case. The applicants have no criminal history. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicants are in jail since 28th June, 2019.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶10

Considering the the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicants involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶12

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal

¶14

Code.

¶15

(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶16

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶17

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 21.10.2019 Sushil/-

Deen Dayal Gupta and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deen Dayal Gupta and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aslam @ Gullu Vs State of U.P.

Babbu @ Firoz Vs State of U.P.

Riyazuddin @ Rajju Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Naseem Vs State of U.P.

Ajmat Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Gupta Vs State of U.P.