Allowed

Santosh Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2024/2857/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a gang rape case citing parity with co-accused similarly situated already released on bail, noting FIR delay and minor defects in prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding conduct and attendance.

Santosh Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27099

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2857 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Santosh Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shankar Lal Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Ranjana Srivastava, learned Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of 9 months. The victim while giving statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Section 164 Cr.P.C. and re-statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C has made continuous improvement in the prosecution case. The story framed by the prosecution is highly improbable. She was a consenting party. There is neither corroborative medical report of the victim nor any other corroborative material found by the prosecution.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that allegation of gang rape has been leveled by the victim on the applicant as well as the other co-accused persons.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Javed @ Firoz Ahmad who was assigned similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 2309/2024. Another co-accused Pappu @ Suraj Singh Rawat who was also assigned similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.03.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 12993 of 2023. Learned counsel for the

¶11

applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.06.2023 without having any criminal antecedent. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that it is a case of parity.

¶14

On due consideration to the fact that co-accused Javed @ Firoz Ahmad and Pappu @ Suraj Singh Rawat who were assigned similar role have been enlarged on bail; the victim is a married lady; she has made improvements in the prosecution case; there is a delay of several months in lodging of the FIR, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.06.2023 without having any criminal antecedent 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 on the ground of parity.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant, Santosh Gupta involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 234/2023, under Sections 342/376(D)/420/386/506 IPC and Section 67/67(A) of I.T. Act, Police Station - Chinhat, District - Lucknow, 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(iv) The applicant 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 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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

Order Date :- 2.4.2024 R.C.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief 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

Pawan Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Nafees Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 3 Others

Rajendra Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Umashankar Yadav @ Bander vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home

Salman vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.