Allowed

Rajeet Gupta Alias Ramjit Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2023ABAIL/12688/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a cheating case involving forgery of appointment letters. Bail is granted until the filing of the police report, subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till filing of police report on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

Rajeet Gupta Alias Ramjit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:221689

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12688 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajeet Gupta Alias Ramjit Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Crl. Misc. Exemption Application No.1 of 2023 is allowed.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.394 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Maharajganj, the applicant - Rajeet Gupta alias Ramjit Gupta has filed this anticipatory bail application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

¶9

On the false pretext of providing some employment in the Police Department, Rs.17 lakh were demanded from the informant by co-accused Jitendra Baitha and Ori Yadav, who were introduced by the present applicant to the informant and subsequently a huge amount of more than Rs.11 lakh were given through bank transaction to the co-accused Jitendra and his wife Seema Devi and an amount to the tune of Rs.1.5 lakh in cash was also handed over to them, but subsequently no employment was provided and the appointment letter, which was given by the co-accused persons, was also found forged and fabricated. F.I.R. was lodged on 21.7.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. It is further submitted that no money has been given in cash or through bank transaction in favour of the applicant by the informant. It is further submitted that in fact, there is no role of the

¶11

applicant in the commission of the entire offence. It is further submitted that the factual aspect of the matter is that some money was borrowed from the applicant by the informant and when he demanded his money back, he was falsely roped in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit. He is cooperating with the investigation. It is further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in the matter. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but however he could not dispute this factual aspect that a huge amount of money through bank transaction and also in cash has been given to co-accused persons of this case and not to the present applicant.

¶13

Investigation into the matter is going on and the applicant is cooperating with the investigation. No money is said to be given to the present applicant.

¶14

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶15

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and

¶16

has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶17

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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶18

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶21

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶24

Order Date :- 21.11.2023

¶25

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeet Gupta Alias Ramjit Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeet Gupta Alias Ramjit 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

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shivchandra Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Khatik Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Meenu Srivastava and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chand Vs State of U.P. and Another