Allowed

Smt. Nisha Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2020ABAIL/1134/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Smt. Nisha Gupta, in a quadruple murder-cheating case. The court held her case distinguishable from other accused and allowed the prayer subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000, conditions regarding appearance, non-tampering, and concluding investigation within four months.

What did the court decide?

Release on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of like amount subject to ten conditions.

Smt. Nisha Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1134 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Nisha Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the first information report as well as rejection order.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not nominated in the F.I.R.; the F.I.R. was lodged against eight persons including husband of the applicant, who were dealing with certain transaction in trade tax department to save tax. It is stated that so far as the applicant is concerned, there is no allegation of downloading any form of the concerned businessman on whose behalf co-accused used to file return of trade tax. It is stated that certain amount was transferred from the applicant's account to settle liability of trade tax from the joint account of applicant's husband. It is stated that the applicant had no knowledge of any such transaction and her case is distinguishable from her husband and other persons who were indulging in such illegal and nefarious activity; the applicant is only a home maker and has not committed any offence; she has no criminal history. The matter needs deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and having no criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶9

In the event of arrest of the applicant Smt. Nisha Gupta involved in Case Crime No. 1387/14, u/s 420, 467, 468, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions.

¶10

1.that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶11

2.that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶12

3.that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶13

4.that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for

¶14

cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶15

5.that the investigating officer is directed to conclude the investigation in the present case in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this court while considering or deciding the present bail application of the applicant;

¶16

6.that the applicant is directed to produce certified copy of this order before the SSP/SP concerned within 10 days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of the present order;

¶17

7.that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

8.that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

9.that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

10.that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶21

It is made clear that if the charge-sheet is submitted and cognizance is taken and matter is committed to the court of session, as the case may be, the trial court shall decide the trial preferably within a period of one year from the cognizance/ committal of the case to the Court of Sessions.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid, the application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.

¶23

It is made clear that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of her husband Rajeev and others, who were indulging in forging documents of trade tax department in depositing trade tax and were doing business in his behalf, which caused loss to the informant.

¶24

Order Date :- 5.2.2020 Dhirendra/

Smt. Nisha Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nisha Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Azeem Vs State of U.P.

Panna Lal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Talib Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aamir Faheem Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pratap Narain Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Shafi Alias Pappu Alias Wali Vs State of U.P.