Allowed

Rajeev Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2023BAIL/18921/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of Rajeev Gupta, arguing that his epilepsy prevented him from appearing in court for years. As he was not assigned a direct role in the murder and co-accused were released, he was granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions regarding appearance, tampering, and antisocial conduct.

Rajeev Gupta Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118239

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18921 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajeev Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreen Masroor,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suresh Dhar Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sadrul Islam Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Asif Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ghanshyam Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the Staterespondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 912 of 2014, under Sections 302, 504, 34 IPC, Police Station Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2014 and according to the FIR, applicant alongwith other co-accused persons committed the murder of the brother of the informant and it is specifically mentioned in the FIR that co-accused Sachin Gupta caused fire arm injury to the deceased.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2014 but after investigation, final report was submitted and thereafter applicant and two other accused persons were summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. on 13.6.2016 but initially applicant could not became aware that he has been summoned under section 319 Cr.PC. and as he was patient of epilepsy since year 2012 and he was under continuous medical treatment, therefore, he could not appear before the trial court and medical certificate of the applicant issued by the doctor of AIMS has been annexed as annexure-11 to the affidavit filed alongwith the instant bail application and applicant surrendered before the court concerned on 3.4.2023.

¶10

He further submitted that applicant did not wilfully abstain himself from the court proceeding and he could not appear before the court concerned only due to his bad health.

¶11

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant further submits that admittedly applicant did not cause any fire arm injury to the deceased and he was summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. and two other accused persons who were also summoned alongwith the applicant, have already been released on bail and their bail orders have been appended alongwith the instant bail application as annexure-10 to the affidavit.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is an absconder and he absconded for almost seven years as he was summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. in the year 2016 but could not dispute the fact that annexure-11 is the certificate of the doctor of AIMS which shows that applicant suffered from the disease of Epilepsy and role of causing fire arm injury has not been assigned to the applicant and two coaccused who were summoned alongwith the applicant under section 319 CrP.C. have already been released on bail.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶14

Although, it appears that applicant was summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. in the year 2016 and he surrendered before the court concerned after about seven years but from the record, it reflects that applicant is suffering from Epilepsy since year 2012 and he was continuously under medical treatment and there is also a certificate from the doctor of AIMS which has been appended as annexure-11 to the affidavit. Further, applicant summoned in the present matter under section 319 Cr.PC. alongwith two others and remaining two other accused persons have already been released on bail and case of applicant is at par with him as far as merit of the case is concerned.

¶15

Further, there is no allegation against the applicant that he caused any injury to the deceased and role of causing fire arm injury has been assigned to another co-accused person.

¶16

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶18

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

¶19

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶23

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶24

Order Date :- 26.5.2023

¶25

Ankita

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeev Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramdas @ Bhagat Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

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

Deepak Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Sukhlal Vs State of U.P.

Monis Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others