Allowed

Rahul Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2022BAIL/42127/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Court allowed bail to the applicant Rahul Gupta in Case Crime No.772 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 482, 272, 273 IPC and Sections 63/65 of Copyright Act. Granting bail was held appropriate considering the applicant had no criminal history and jail overcrowding during the COVID-19 pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount subject to specified conditions.

Rahul Gupta Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42127 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaskar Bhadra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for the applicantRahul Gupta, and Sri Shrawan Kumar Ojha, the learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Rahul Gupta for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.772 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 482, 272, 273 I.P.C, read with Section 63/65 of Copyright Act, registered at Police StationBaradari, District-Bareilly.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 2.9.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by S.I. Rita Tewatiya before P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly being FIR no.0722of 2021 on 17.8.2021 at 23:15 hours in the above noted sections with the allegation that the accused nominated in the FIR being three in number inclusive of the applicant had committed the offence, as they were found manufacturinig Gutkha (Pan Masala) without any valid licence and further referable to the fact that they were also following the provisions contained in Copyright Act.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case in question and he has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph no.16 of the bail application so as to contend that he is simply a servant of coaccused Ali Hasan. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that from the perusal of the bail rejection order at page-22 of the paper-book from the godown, where the incriminating articles were sought to be recovered belongs to one Sharafat, who had leased the said godown to the co-accused Ali Hasan. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant has got nothing to do with the said offences. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards para-26 so as to contend that he does not possess any criminal history and thus he is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 18.8.2021. If he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse

¶10

the liberty, he be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Countering the said submission, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail while arguing on the strength of the counter affidavit dated 6.1.2022, so as to contend that the incriminating articles were found in the go-down and merely because a stand has been sought to be taken that he is an employee will not be in any manner whatsoever, a ground to hold the applicant innocent and merely because applicant does not possess any criminal history will not be a relevant factor.

¶12

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the applicant does not possess any criminal history and is languishing in jail since 18.8.2021, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶13

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶14

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Rahul Gupta involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶16

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶20

facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶25

Order Date :- 14.2.2022 N.S.Rathour

¶26

Digitally signed by NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2022.02.18 11:33:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Samruddin Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Awadhesh Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Rathi @ Sonu Rathi Vs State of U.P.

Binda Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rajveer Singh and 2 Other Vs State of U.P.