Allowed

Sunil Kumar Gupta @ Rajkumar Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2023BAIL/46053/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court granted bail to the applicant in a case under the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Act, 1986. The Court noted the applicant was not a gang leader, the charge-sheet was filed, and no specific threat to witnesses or evidence was established, entitling him to bail upon furnishing a bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was ordered released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount, conditioned against tampering with evidence, pressurizing witnesses, and ensuring appearan

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:223989

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46053 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Gupta @ Rajkumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Devottam Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 352 of 2023, under Section 2/3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Rasra, District- Ballia, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the gang chart, one case has been shown against the applicant on which basis the proceeding of Gangster Act, has been initiated against the applicant and in that case the applicant has been enlarged on bail. The bail order has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit. It is further contended that the applicant is neither a gang leader nor a member of any gang. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 11 of the affidavit and in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 19.8.2023.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having regard to the development as above and the fact that after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Sunil Kumar Gupta @ Rajkumar Gupta involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

¶12

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

¶13

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 28.11.2023 S.Verma

¶16

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

Sunil Kumar Gupta @ Rajkumar Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Gupta @ Rajkumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P.

Dharmdeo Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Nausad Vs State of U.P.

Aabid Vs State of U.P.

Arif Kuraishi Vs State of U.P.