Allowed

Upendra Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2023BAIL/44238/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application allowing the accused to be released on a personal bond and sureties subject to conditions, including an undertaking not to sell specific branded cigarettes and not to tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions including not selling cigarettes pertaining to Shyam Bidi.

Upendra Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:206140

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44238 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tiwari Abhishek Rajesh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atharva Dixit

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that on the raid made by police party, 435 packets of cigarette are recovered which pertain to a particular brand and the applicant is supplying items of beetle to the shop owners and the same were purchased from the distributor. In case if there is any discrepancy, the applicant cannot be held liable. However, an undertaking is submitted before this Court by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant will not sell the cigarette pertaining to the Shyam Bidi. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 22.08.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the informant submits that the trademark was being violated by selling the furious cigarettes, however, he submits that in view of the undertaking given by applicant he would have no objection provided the applicant do not violate the undertaking.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶11

Learned AGA has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for bail.

¶12

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶13

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the Applicant.

¶14

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶16

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant Upendra Kumar Gupta involved in Case Crime No. 655 of 2023 , under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 63 of Copyright Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶19

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶20

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶22

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶23

v. 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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶25

vii. In the event, the applicant changes his residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶26

viii. The applicant shall not sell the cigarette pertaining to the company Shyam Bidi except the original cigarettes as may be produced by the company.

¶27

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

¶28

Order Date :- 28.10.2023 RA

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Upendra Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manu @ Sahil Vs State of U.P.

Ganga Ram Vs State of U.P.

Himanshu Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P.

Suheb Vs State of U.P.