Allowed

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

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2024/689/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 689 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) allowed the bail application of Ajeet Kumar Gupta accused under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. Considering identical allegations in 35 prior cases where bail was granted and the filing of the charge-sheet, the court ordered release with sureties and conditions against tampering with evidenc

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail by furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like amount.

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10239

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 689 of 2024

¶4

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

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant and bunch of orders wherein the applicant has been granted bail by this Court as well as by the Coordinate Benches of this Court, both are taken on record.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is also taken on record.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including upto date case diary, and charge-sheet in this case has been submitted.

¶9

Heard Shri Vivek Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

This bail application has been moved by the accusedapplicant- Ajeet Kumar Gupta alias Ajeet Gupta for grant of bail in Case Crime No. 563 of 2021, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC lodged at Police Station Kotwali Bikapur, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, during trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant, while pressing the bail application, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and, he has not committed any offence, as claimed by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the FIR of this case has been lodged against one accused person with the allegations that Anne Bullion Traders/Eye Vision India Credit Cooperative Society Limited had taken the money shown in the FIR from the informant and other victims on the pretext that at the time of maturity 40% return would be provided to the investors, however, neither the money has been returned nor return has been provided, as promised by the said company. It is vehemently submitted that the applicant was the director of

¶12

Anee Bullion Traders and was not involved in management of the Eye Vision Society and the money of depositors was transferred to Eye Vision Society on their consent and, therefore, he could not be held vicariously liable for any misdeed committed by the persons, who were managing the Eye Vision Society. It is further vehemently submitted that 152 criminal cases so far have been lodged against the applicant on identical allegations, out of which, the applicant has been granted bail in 35 cases.

¶13

It is next submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 16.07.2020. Charge sheet in this case has already been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶14

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant but could not dispute the fact that with regard to identical allegations the applicant has been enlarged on bail in other similar matters.

¶15

Considering the fact that on the basis of identical allegations various FIRs have been lodged against the applicant and he stated himself to be Director of Anee Bullion Traders and also that he was not involved in the management of Eye Vision Society and that he is languishing in jail in this case since 16.07.2020, in 35 cases of identical nature the applicant has been enlarged on bail, Charge sheet in this case has already been filed and the presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions, facility of bail may be provided to him.

¶16

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed.

¶17

Let the accused/applicant- Ajeet Kumar Gupta alias Ajeet Gupta, involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

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

¶22

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 2.2.2024

¶25

Praveen

¶26

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

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

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, Lucknow

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

Shoeb Iqbal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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

Rahul Singh @ Rahul Somvanshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Confidential Lko. and Another

Izhar Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Kaleem Shakoor and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Om Prakash Pandey @ Gatey Pandey Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.