Allowed

Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2022ABAIL/400/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an anticipatory bail application in a Section 306 IPC suicide case. Balancing nature of accusation and availability of evidence, the court held a case for bail was made out and allowed the application with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 80,000/- and two sureties with conditions not to tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or commit similar offences.

Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 400 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.243/2018, under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Nawabganj, District Kanpur Nagar with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The applicant is brother-in-law of deceased Pushkar. Learned counsel submitted that there was some matrimonial dispute between the sister of applicant and the deceased. According to prosecution version, applicant and her family members were harassing the deceased and they used to demand money from him and due to their harassment, on 10.09.2018 the deceased has committed suicide by jumping into river Ganga. Learned counsel submitted that in fact so far there is no credible evidence that deceased has committed suicide as neither dead-body of deceased has been recovered nor there is any eye-witness of alleged incident. The allegations that applicant or her family members were harassing the deceased, are thoroughly false. Learned counsel submitted that as the sister of applicant has lodged a case under Section 498A/323/504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against deceased and

¶8

his family members, thus, this possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased might have ran away from there. Only vague allegations have been levelled against applicant. There is no motive at all that why the sister of applicant would harass her husband. Referring to facts of the matter, it is submitted that there is no evidence that applicant has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The investigation is already complete. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he 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 applicant 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 applicant- Dinesh Kumar Gupta in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.80,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶18

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶20

Order Date :- 2.9.2022 Neeraj

¶21

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.09.05 12:30:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brajesh Kumar Gupta and 3 Others 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

Smt. Neeraj Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Meena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. and Another