Allowed

Pradeep Kumar Gupta@ Pintu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2022ABAIL/4610/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the court allowed bail to the applicant in a cheating and criminal conspiracy case under the IPC. The court imposed conditions including furnishing a bond and complying with investigation requirements.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and compliance with conditions regarding investigation and non-journey out of India.

Pradeep Kumar Gupta@ Pintu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4610 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Gupta@ Pintu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Tiwari,Gyanendra 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. 61 of 2006, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Atarra, District Banda 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. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. The FIR of this case was lodged by complainant-bank against applicant and three co-accused persons, inter-alia, alleging that the complainant-bank used to send cheques for collection to other banks through B.K. Courier and that the employees of the said courier company i.e. applicant and co-accused Rahul @ Aman and Rajesh Gupta used to carry the cheques to other banks but some of the cheques were stolen in the way and by tampering the same, said amount deposited into the bank accounts of the accused persons and in this way complainant bank was cheated in the tune of Rs. 27,12,680/-. Learned counsel submitted that applicant was merely employee of the said courier company and no amount was transferred into the account of applicant,

¶8

rather the said amount has been transferred into the bank account of Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Ram Chandra Gupta and thus, there is no credible evidence regarding involvement of applicant in the alleged transactions. It was pointed out that applicant has joined the investigation and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. Further, similarly placed co-accused Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Ajay Kumar Gupta and Vishambhar Singh @ Pradeep Kumar Gupta have already been granted regular bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court, copies of which are available on record. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or 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 with the investigation 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 position 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

¶12

anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Pradeep Kumar Gupta @ Pintu involved in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till submission of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;

¶16

(ii) 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 office;

¶17

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 10.8.2022 Anand

¶20

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.08.11 17:08:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Kumar Gupta@ Pintu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Gupta@ Pintu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Yusuf and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Muneem and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Siddh Nath Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Asim Vs State of U.P. and Another