Neetu Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1787 of 2023

Applicant :- Neetu Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar Singh,Santosh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.16 of 2014, registered under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station- Roja, District Shahjahanpur with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicants, who are the owners of the company, are stated to have coerced the informant to invest an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs in the year 2012. The applicants are stated to have usurped the said amount and are stated to have neither returned the money nor any interest on it.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that there is nothing on record to suggest that the said money has been transferred to the accounts of the applicants. The applicant no.1 is the wife of applicant no.2 and specially abled person. Learned counsel has further stated that the FIR was lodged in the year 2014 and the investigation is going on. The Investigating Agency has not yet reach to any conclusion. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicants except one case against applicant no.2, which stands explained. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and has stated that several sections have been added during investigation, although he could not bring forward any receipt or any document in support of the prosecution allegations.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Neetu Gupta and Pramod Kumar Gupta be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

(ii). that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶15

(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶16

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

(vi). that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶21

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 13.4.2023 Ravi Kant

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeet Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gaigy Begam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reeta Devi Vs State of U.P.

Shamsher Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vikas Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prabha Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Othres