Allowed

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

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2024/3360/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application of Dinesh Kumar Gupta, an accused in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 323, 342, 386, 395, 364-A, 201 IPC. Relying on the principle of parity as bail was granted to four co-accused, the court released him on bail with conditions regarding appearance, sureties, and travel restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant permitted to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in Rs. 1,00,000 each subject to specified conditions.

Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46913

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3360 of 2024

¶4

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

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Akhilendra Pratap Singh,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed short supplementary affidavit which is taken on record.

¶9

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 22.12.2023 in Case Crime No.170 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 342, 386, 395, 364-A, 201 IPC registered at Police Station - Hasanganj, Dstrict - Lucknow.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that against the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein six persons have been implicated as accused. This Court granted bail to the co-accused, Anurag Dwivedi, in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4286 of 2024 vide order dated 19.04.2024, Yusuf Hussain, in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4821 of 2024 vide order dated 06.05.2024, Shekhar @ Chunnu Kumar Singh, in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2174 of 2024 vide order dated 14.05.2024 and Dhirendra Singh Yadav, in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5559 of 2024 vide order dated 23.05.2024, as copy of the aforesaid bail orders have been supplied by learned Counsel for the applicant. Therefore, he has requested that the present applicant may also be released on bail on the basis of principle of parity. He has also submitted that the other co-accused were also having criminal history and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court granted bail to the above named co-accused persons.

¶11

Vide order dated 03.07.2024, this Court directed learned

¶12

Counsel for the applicant to explain the criminal history of the present applicant properly and in compliance thereof, he has filed a short supplementary affidavit. Paragraph 5 and 6 of the short supplementary affidavit are being reproduced herein below:-

¶13

"5. That as a specification, the applicant points out that out of 20 cases, ten cases have been lodged by the police in which the police personnel themselves are the complainant; six cases of loot/theft have been cracked open against the applicant in which the applicant is not named in any of the cases nor there is any Test Identification Parade been conducted before the prosecution witnesses and in none of the cases, there is a recovery of any such gravity which could prove the complicity of the applicant in such cases, besides two cases lodged against the applicant are minor offences which are registered under Section 323 IPC and out of which the applicant has already been acquitted in one case; besides a NCR case has been also shown in the criminal antecedents in which the applicant has not received any summons till date, despite the fact that the case relates to the year 2009 and the last case is a case under Section 406 IPC which is a connected case with the present case and has been lodged subsequently.

¶14

6. That thus, out of 20 cases, ten cases are such in which the police is the complainant; in six cases, the applicant has been falsely implicated on the behest of the police, on the basis of confessional statement; besides two cases are of criminal nature and a case of NCR has been lodged against the applicant; besides a case under Section 406 IPC has been lodged subsequent to the instant case."

¶15

Learned Counsel for the applicant has stated that if the present applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, shall not misuse the liberty of bail granted and shall cooperate in the trial.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the present applicant is having a criminal history of 20 cases, therefore, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail but on being confronted on Paragraph 5 and 6 of the short supplementary affidavit which has been filed today, learned A.G.A. submitted that any appropriate order may be passed in the interest of prosecution.

¶17

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; out of six named accused persons, four named accused persons have been granted bail and the manner the present applicant has been implicated in the cases, as has been indicated in Paragraph 5 & 6 of the short supplementary affidavit, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let applicant - Dinesh Kumar Gupta be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount of Rs. 1,00,000/before the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(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 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

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶25

Order Date :- 10.7.2024 Lokesh Kumar

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikal Kumar and 309 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Affairs Lko. and 3 Others

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

Prashant Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development and 3 Others

Balwan Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 2 Others

Nand Kumar Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 5 Others

Ghan Shyam Pandey Vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others