Allowed

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC14 May 2024/4173/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the applicant, languishing in jail for over three years without trial initiation amidst co-accused bail grants, is entitled to bail on personal bond and sureties under IPC provisions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two suretes subject to conditions against tampering witness pressurization and appearance.

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37043

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4173 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Puneet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 299 of 2021, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Mavai, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 07.11.2021 against eight persons, including the applicant stating that the informant had made investment in Eye Vision India Credit Cooperative Society Limited; but upon maturity no amount was paid to him. Applicant's criminal history of 166 cases have been disclosed in paragraph 16 of the affidavit, in 71 of which the applicant has been granted bail.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.07.2020 but trial of any of the cases has not commenced till date.

¶11

The learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶12

Co-accused Vishnu Gupta, Shiv Kumar Goswami and Raj Kumar Srivastava have already been granted bail by means of orders dated 21.07.2023, 12.09.2022 and 20.07.2022 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 9185 of 2023, 9879 of 2022 and 7972 of 2022 respectively.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.07.2020 for past more than 3 years

¶14

& 9 months without even commencement of trial, I am of the

¶15

view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the present case.

¶16

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶19

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶20

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶21

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 14.5.2024 kkv/

¶23

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

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyamu Alias Lala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Ram Harish Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Vijay Bahadur Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue,Lko. and 6 Others

Syed Mohammad Taj Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

M/S Aravali Infra Developers,Bahraich Thru. Proprietor Farhan Shavez Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Finance, Lko. and 2 Others

Reshma and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Urban Development, Lucknow and Others