Nishant Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:32450

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2881 of 2024

Applicant :- Nishant Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Mishra,Atul Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent. Shri Mohd. Imran Khan, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record.

¶7

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of FIR/Case Crime No.0539/2023, under Sections 316, 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is a matrimonial dispute between the applicant and the complainant. However, in order to give gravity and colour to the aforesaid matrimonial dispute, the instant FIR has been lodged.

¶9

It is further submitted that as per the averments made in the FIR, it is alleged that during pregnancy of the complainant, the applicant and his brother had mistreated and hit the complainant on her stomach which led to her abortion.

¶10

It has further been stated that all started since the applicant and his family members were not happy with the marriage on account of adequate gifts and dowry demand was made which was not met.

¶11

It is urged that the FIR has been lodged on 26.12.2023 whereas the alleged incident is of 24.02.2023. It has further been stated that the applicant had already initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was engaging the attention of the Family Court at Lucknow. It thereafter the FIR has been lodged wherein it is also stated that the complainant had been residing with her parents in her own home. There is no explanation as to why the FIR was not lodged earlier.

¶12

It has also been pointed out that even the applicant was accompanied by his mother and had taken the complainant to the hospital and only on medical advice and it was on the advice of the doctor that the abortion took place on account of medical emergency.

¶13

The allegations are completely baseless, apart from the fact the applicant does not have any criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 01.02.2024.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant, both have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It has been argued that it is only on the mistreatment and assaulted the complainant and apart from her pregnancy, she miscarriage and as such in the aforesaid circumstances, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record including taking note of the statement of the doctor which has been placed along with the counter affidavit filed by the State, it appears that there was some medical emergency which prompted the doctor to give appropriate advice which led to the abortion. There is no denial of the fact that the matrimonial dispute is engaging the attention of the Family Court at Lucknow as well as considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant Nishant Gupta involved in FIR/Case Crime No.0539/2023, under Sections 316, 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶17

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶18

(i) 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

¶19

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

(ii) 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

(iii) 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

(iv) The applicant 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. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant 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 against him in accordance with law.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

Order Date :- 25.4.2024 Rakesh/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sajid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Umesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Dheeraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Devi Prasad Mishra vs M/S Nayara Energy Limited (Earlier Essar Oil Limited) Thru Auth. Signatory/ Managing Director

Nishant Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko