Allowed

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

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2022ABAIL/9174/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by Akhilesh Kumar Gupta under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Considering the nature of accusation, lack of credible evidence, and prior bail of a co-accused, the order expressed no opinion on merits but granted bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties in the like amount.

Akhilesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anotherr — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9174 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anotherr Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Srivastava 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 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, 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. Applicant has 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 applicant. 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 applicant. 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. Applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Court. It has

¶8

been stated that in case, 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 Akhilesh Kumar Gupta in the aforesaid complaint case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 applicant shall appear before the court below on the date fixed by that court and he shall not seek unwarranted adjournments and would co-operate in trial;

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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 applicant.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.9.2022 Anand

¶19

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.09.03 11:50:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs State of U.P.