Allowed

Suresh Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2024/11037/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 303(2), 35, etc., of B.N.S., applicants alleged police planting and lack of independent recovery witnesses. The High Court, noting no cogent evidence against them aside from presence in a vehicle, found it a fit case for bail despite prior criminal history, ordering release on sureties with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicants were released on bail subject to personal bonds and two sureties each, with conditions regarding non-tampering with evidence and attendance at trial court sessions.

Suresh Kumar Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70681

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11037 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Gupta And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Vaibhav Srivastava,Vishnu Pratap Singh

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit filed today by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶9

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

¶10

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 389 of 2024 under sections 303(2), 35, 317(2), 317(5), 319(2), 318(4), 338(3), 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S. P.S.- Kotwali Ayodhya District -Ayodhya.

¶11

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are not involved in the present matter though, the police has planted them. He submits that the incident is said to be taken place on 19.8.2024 and the police has arrested the applicants after about one month and has shown the recovery of stolen vehicle. He added that there is no independent public eye witness of the recovery and the police has failed to collect any cogent piece of evidence against them except apart, the present applicants have been shown sitting inside the stolen vehicle. He next submits that the applicants have two cases criminal history which has been explained in paragraph no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit and they are languishing in jail since 19.8.2024 and they undertake that in case, they are granted bail, they will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicants have been arrested and the stolen vehicle was recovered on spot. He also submits that the applicants have two cases criminal history and as such, they are not entitled for any

¶13

relief.

¶14

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that there is no independent public eye witness of the recovery; the applicants are languishing in jail since 19.8.2024; the applicants have two cases criminal history which has been explained in paragraph no. 3 of the supplementary affidavit and they have undertaken that they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶16

Let the applicants- Suresh Kumar Gupta and Shivpujan involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶17

(1) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶18

(2) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. They shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsels. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶19

(3) The applicants 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 Cr.P.C.; and

¶20

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

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.

¶22

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 Mayank

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suresh Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Gupta and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Vandana Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Praveen Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Chandan Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Bhoora Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Bhoora vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another