Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47373

Court No. - 32

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6301 of 2024

Applicant :- Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar,Ashok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Punit Kumar Yadav, the learned State Counsel and perused the record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 679 of 2020, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station P.G.I, District Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 20.09.2020 against five persons, including the applicant, alleging that the informant had made some investments in Eye Vision India Credit Cooperation Society Limited/Ani Bullian Industries Pvt. Ltd. The F.I.R have been lodged when the company did not pay any return on the investments made by the informant.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant was working as a clerk in the aforesaid company during the period 2014-19 and till that period, he had no criminal history. The applicant has been implicated as an accused in as many as 69 cases of similar nature. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.08.2021, although he has been granted bail in 41 cases.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that two co-accused persons, namely, Anjani Kumar Kaushal and Vishnu Gupta have been granted bail in the present case and copies of their bail orders have been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is

¶13

neither a director nor other principle position holder in the company in which the informant had made investments; that apparently the F.I.R has been lodged upon non refund of money invested in a company and no proceedings for recovery of money have been invested; that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.08.2021 whereas two co-accused persons have been granted bail and without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar 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 the following conditions: -

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 12.7.2024 Preeti.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Kaushalendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Empowerment, Persons With Disabil. and Ors.

Vakeel Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Siraj Ahmad and 9 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Neelam Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ravi Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Birendra Swaroop Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow