Allowed

Dilip Kumr Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2022BAIL/10972/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge court granted bail to Dilip Kumar Gupta, a fair price shop dealer, accused under Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and 120B IPC. The court found no tampering risk and lack of prior complaints, ordering release on personal bond and two sureties with specific attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties under specified conditions.

Dilip Kumr Gupta Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10972 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Abid Ali,Mohd Irteqa,Suresh Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Dilip Kumar Gupta, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 19 of 2022, under Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B I.P.C. registered at P.S. Kotwali, District Bareilly.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is running a Fair Price Shop since 2015 in village Panchayat Izzat Nagar, Bareilly regarding which there was some complaint and the shop was raided on 13.1.2022 after which a First Information Report was lodged on 15.1.2022, under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act. It is argued that the allegation against the applicant is that he made an attempt to pass on illegal gratification to the District Supply Officer. It is further argued that the said allegation is false and incorrect and no such incident whatsoever took place. It is argued that there has been no complaint whatsoever against the applicant before but he has been illegally implicated in the present case because there was some demand by the officers which could not be fulfilled by him. It is argued while placing para-5 of the affidavit that except for the present case and the case under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, the applicant has no other criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 15.1.2022.

¶8

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. and there are allegations against him.

¶9

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant is a fair price dealer

¶10

running since 2015. A First Information Report under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act has been lodged against him on 15.1.2022. The applicant prior to lodging of the present F.I.R., has no other complaint whatsoever regarding running of fair price shop since last seven years.

¶11

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Dilip Kumar gupta, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (out of which one surety should be the family member of the applicant ) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶17

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶18

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶19

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

¶20

The bail application is allowed.

¶21

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 1.8.2022 Naresh

¶23

Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR Date: 2022.08.01 18:06:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dilip Kumr Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumr 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yameen Vs State of U.P.

Gurpreet Singh Vs C.B.I New Delhi

Zahiruddin Khan Vs Central Bureau of Investigation.

Smt. Sunte Vs State of U.P.

Yunus and Others Vs State of U.P.

Shailesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others