Allowed

Shivam Gupta @ Chotey Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2023ABAIL/12249/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the anticipatory bail application of Shivam Gupta under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding charges of kidnapping and abduction, granting bail on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with conditions including cooperation with investigation and surrender of passport.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, subject to specified conditions.

Shivam Gupta @ Chotey Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:224098

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12249 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shivam Gupta @ Chotey Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Krishna Kant Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.172 of 2023, under Sections 363 and 366 IPC, Police Station Balua, District Chandauli.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim was having love affairs with Vikash and continuously talked with Vikash and wants to solemnize marriage with him. He further submits that the victim has refused for her internal and external examination. He further submits that co-accused Vikash has already been granted bail by the court below vide order dated 16.10.2023. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 25 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case

¶11

and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Shivam Gupta @ Chotey Gupta, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶14

(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 officer.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶19

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶20

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at

¶21

liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 28.11.2023 Ajeet

¶24

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

Shivam Gupta @ Chotey Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Gupta @ Chotey 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

Smt Asma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary and Another

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Chauhan @ Anil Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Suman @ Savita Satija (as Mentioned in Fir) Dr. Suman (Real Name) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another