Dismissed

Shubham Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023ABAIL/10040/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Allahabad High Court refused anticipatory bail to an applicant charged under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under the SC/ST Act and IPC sections regarding a love affair turning into an allegation of blackmail. Court held that material on record made out a case.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed; Anticipatory bail refused.

Shubham Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195043

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10040 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shubham Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,R.C. Maurya

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for applicant, Sri R.C. Maurya, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the applicant for protection in regard to Case Crime No.228 of 2020, under Sections 376, 354-A, 504, 506, 387 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S.Chhatta, District- Agra.

¶8

There is allegation against the applicant regarding offence under SC/ST Act. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is only allegation that the applicant befriended the informant. There is allegation of blackmailing of the informant by the applicant on the basis of photographs.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case; the applicant had love affair with the informant and she entered into physical relation with consent. He submitted that there is no element of force involved and later relationship deteriorated, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. There is contradiction in the statements of the recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C.. No offence is made out against the applicant under SC/ST Act. The applicant is having no criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 25 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶10

Sri R.C. Maurya, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that victim in her statement recorded under Sections 164 Cr.P.C. as well as second statement of the victim where she has stated that applicant has send her photos on her brothers' mobile. Learned counsel for the informant has relied upon paragraph no.15 the judgment of this Court passed in Kailash and another Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2022 4 Crimes (HC) 90 , which reads as under:-

¶11

"After the decision in Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra), the legal position is that an anticipatory bail in a crime where an offence under SC/ST is alleged can be granted only if the Court is satisfied that the allegations levelled do not prima facie make out a case under SC/ST Act. The position of law remains same even after the enactment of Section 18A of the Act."

¶12

He further submitted that in view the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, the applicant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶13

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶14

After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material available on record, there is no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is hereby refused.

¶15

Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Applicant is advised to move regular bail application before the appropriate forum and if such application is given, the court below shall consider and disposed of the bail application expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.10.2023 Krishna*

¶17

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shubham Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Gupta 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

Sachin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abdul Wahid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jamidar Yadav and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Sirohi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jogendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dev Sharan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others