Allowed

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

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2023CRLA/9065/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's criminal appeal against the rejection of his bail application. Finding that the lower court failed to properly consider facts, ignored the defense case, and cited considerations of jail overcrowding and Article 21, the court set aside the impugned order and enlarged the appellant on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail dated 16.11.2022 is set aside and the appellant is released on bail providing a personal bond and two sureties.

Deepak Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Reserved On:- 19.04.2023 Delivered On:- 24.04.2023

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9065 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Deepak Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhir Dixit,Anupam Shyam Dwivedi,Smt. Richa Dixita

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sukrampal,Tikendra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sukrampal, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶8

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 628 of 2022, under Sections- 147, 323, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Gandhi Park, Aligarh, District- Aligarh.

¶9

There is allegation in the FIR that the son of the informant is working in Tanya Suit Collection shop for 3-4 years. Today at 3-4 p.m, Gaurav Varshney, his wife and 2-3 persons caused injuries by sariya, lathi and danda to his son, Ashok Kumar. On getting information from Jitu, he went to J.N. Medical and found that his condition his serious and he is being treated in emergency.

¶10

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was not named in the FIR. On the date of incident, the son of the informant, Ashok Kumar, came to purchase clothes on the shop and misbehaved with co-accused, Simran. Simran lodged a case in Case Crime No. 627 of 2022, under Sections 323, 354 IPC against Ashok Kumar. Only to save his son the informant has lodged the false FIR against the appellant and other co-accused persons.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out to the statement of the injured wherein he has admitted that he entered into the dispute with Simran Varshney in her shop with regard to purchasing of suit and he slapped Simran. Thereafter, the appellant and other co-accused had beaten him. He has further submitted that the appellant is aged about 53 years and has no criminal history to his credit. He was not named in the FIR nor any specific role has been assigned to him. The dispute was admittedly started by the injured himself and he has admitted beating the co-accused, Simran. He is languishing in jail since 27.10.2022. It is a case of malicious prosecution under the provisions of SC/ST Act. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court below has not properly considered the facts of the case. Hence, in view of above

¶15

¶16

consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 16.11.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶17

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Let appellant, Deepak Gupta , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶19

(i) The appellant 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.

¶20

(ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

(iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶22

¶23

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶24

(vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶26

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law within period of one year after the release of the appellant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶27

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶28

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶29

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within a week.

¶30

Order Date :- 24.04.2023

¶31

Rohit

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangram Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mithlesh Kumar Mishra @ Mithlesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyanarayan Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another