Allowed

Shubham Gupta @ Bhola v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC20 Oct 2022/5364/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to Shubham Gupta @ Bhola in a case involving attempts to murder and cellular hazard, imposing stringent conditions regarding witness tampering, adjournments, and appearance before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding witness safety, attendance, and prohibition on adjournment seeking.

Shubham Gupta @ Bhola Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5364 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shubham Gupta @ Bhola Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Pooja Dubey,Sanjay Pandey,Sudhir Kumar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vijay Kumar Asthana

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Vijay Kumar Asthana, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.1239 of 2021, under Sections 34, 452, 307, 506 I.P.C., Police StationKotwali Sadar, District Kheri.

¶9

As per the allegations in the F.I.R., the co-accused person Chhannu @ Channu alongwith three unknown person are said to have come to the shop of the first informant and fired at him injuring him thereby. When his nephew Talib tried to intervene, he was also fired at by him. Three unknown persons accompanying the co-accused person Chhannu @ Channu are stated to have run away firing in air.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant has come up later on in the statement of neighbours, namely, Iktiyar and Sudhir, which was recorded by the investigating officer on the next day of the incident. Learned counsel has further stated that the name of the applicant has also been stated by the informant in his supplementary statement recorded by the investigating officer. Learned counsel has stated that when the informant, who is himself an injured person, had the knowledge of the names of the applicant and other unknown persons, then why he had not indicated his name in the FIR itself which was lodged after a substantial time of about four and half hours. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per

¶11

counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.01.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant contends that the identically situate co-accused, namely, Sharafat @ Saraf @ Shaban has already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4322 of 2022, vide order dated 04.08.2022 and the applicant is seeking parity of the order aforesaid.

¶13

Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application and stated that the name of the applicant has come up on the very next date of the incident and there is no reason as to why the independent witnesses would nominate the applicant and other accused persons. They have further stated that the first informant is being threatened by one of the co-accused person Bhola, but they could not dispute the fact that the identically situated coaccused has already been enlarged on bail.

¶14

The case of the co-accused person Chhannu @ Channu is distinguishable to the applicant as he is the main assailant and is the named accused person in the F.I.R. itself.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶16

Let the applicant- Shubham Gupta @ Bhola involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶17

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶18

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient

¶19

cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶20

(3) The applicant 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.; and

¶21

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

¶22

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 20.10.2022 S. Shivhare

¶25

Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHIVHARE Date: 2022.10.22 11:17:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shubham Gupta @ Bhola v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Gupta @ Bhola v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home Lko.

Kanhaiya Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Mohd. Akku Vs State of U.P.

Roshan Lal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Lucky Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.