Allowed

Ashish Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024/1083/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by an accused charged under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34 IPC for allegedly conspiring in a murder and paying hired assailants. All co-accused including the actual assailants were already released on bail. The court noted parity, absence of criminal history, and jail period, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ashish Gupta released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, with standard conditions.

Ashish Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2783

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1083 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ashish Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rishabh Tripathi,Ichchha Singh,Rahul Srivastava,Salil Kumar Srivastava,Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Singh Somvanshi

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. It is alleged in the first information report that the informant's brother deceased Prabodh Kumar Gupta on 30.4.2022 at about 10.00p.m. went outside his house to smoke cigarette but till 12.00 in the night he did not come home. The complainant and other family members looked out for him and they came to know that the deceased was having some dispute in respect of property with the present applicant Ashish Gupta and for this reason, the applicant with friends Umesh Mishra and Rajesh along with another person got the deceased killed and threw his body on the road.

¶8

3.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main assailants Umesh Mishra and Rajesh alias Rajanikant Tiwari alias Pussu have been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 13.7.2023 and 15.5.2023 passed in Bail Nos. 10464 of 2022 and 782 of 2023 respectively. It is submitted that the role assigned to the applicant is of hatching conspiracy and paying Rs.7 lacs to the hired assailants and providing his car. It is submitted that except the confessional statement of the co-accused and the applicant, there is no evidence which may connect the applicant with the crime. False recovery of Swift Dezire car has been shown from the applicant to which there is no independent witness. His case is on better footing than those of the coaccused Umesh Mishra and Rajesh. He claims parity with the bail order of Umesh and Rajesh.

¶9

One more co-accused Atul Gupta who was assigned the role of keeping the contact amount to be paid to contact killers who

¶10

were hired by the applicant who is relative of Atul Gupta has also been released on bail by a coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 8.12.2022 passed in Bail No.8342 of 2022. Learned counsel claims parity with the bail order of the coaccused. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 4.5.2022.

¶11

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons who were hired assailants have been enlarged on bail.

¶13

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, the co-accused Umesh Mishra, Rajesh and Atul Gupta have been enlarged on bail, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

6. Let the applicant Ashish Gupta, involved in Case Crime No.230 of 2022 under sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., P.S. Dhaurhara, district Lakhimpur Kheri, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶19

shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.1.2024 kkb/

¶24

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashish Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Jubair Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Surendra Rawat @ Matru Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Annu @ Vimlesh Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.

Pawan Rathore and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Jamal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Sangita Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.