Allowed

Brajesh Kumar Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2022ABAIL/1460/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application considered a plea for anticipatory bail in a complaint case involving assault and criminal intimidation. The court held that a case was made out and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail upon personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each; subject to appearance, no adjournments, and no witness interference.

Brajesh Kumar Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1460 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar Gupta And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ruchita Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 130 of 2019, under Sections 147, 392, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Applicants have been summoned in the complaint case lodged by the complainant making false and baseless allegations. The allegations that all the accused persons have assaulted the husband of complainant are thoroughly false. The dispute is regarding eviction of shop and matter is pending before the civil court. Only general and vague allegations have been levelled against the applicants. Referring to the statements of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicants. Similarly placed co-accused Smt. Anju Gupta has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, copy of which is available on record. Applicants have no criminal antecedents. The applicants undertake to cooperate during trial and they would appear as and when

¶8

required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during trial and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicants, namely, Brajesh Kumar Gupta, Awadhesh Kumar Gupta, Mukesh Kumar Gupta and Shivam Gupta in the aforesaid complaint case, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(i) the applicants shall appear before the court below on the date

¶15

fixed by that court and they shall not seek unwarranted adjournments and would co-operate in trial;

¶16

(ii) the applicants 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶17

(iii) the applicants would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

In default of any of the conditions, the complainant/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶19

Order Date :- 1.9.2022 Anand

¶20

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.09.03 11:49:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brajesh Kumar Gupta and 3 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brajesh Kumar Gupta and 3 Others 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lucky Trisholiya and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.

Nizam Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anotherr

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs State of U.P.