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

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:6191

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 698 of 2024

Applicant :- Shrikant Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Gauri Suwan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary.

¶7

Heard Shri Gauri Suwan Pandey, learned counsel for the accused/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Shrikant Gupta for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 63/2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506, 381 IPC, Police Station Sairpur, District Lucknow, during trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication and in fact he is himself being defrauded in the instant case by an imposter.

¶10

Elaborating further, it is submitted that the applicant is bonafide purchaser and had purchased the land in question by registered sale deed from a person who was known to the applicant as Shvi Prasad Pandey and the consideration of the sale deed was agreed as Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- were given through cheques and Rs. 5,00,000/- were paid as cash.

¶11

It is further submitted that the applicant had further executed a sale deed of the land in question to one Ms. Saroj Yadav, however, when he came to know that he has been defrauded by an imposter he immediately returned the whole amount to the second purchaser i.e. Ms. Saroj Yadav.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that sale deed in this case has been executed in favour of the applicant by one Manoj Pandey impersonating himself as Shvi Prasad Pandey and since the applicant is bonafide purchaser no culpability may be fastened

¶13

on him. However, the applicant undertakes that within two months of his release from the prison he will get the sale deed executed by him in favour of Ms. Saroj Yadav as well as the impugned sale deed cancelled.

¶14

It is also submitted the criminal history of two cases has been explained in paragraph 20 of the bail application. He is in jail in this case since 2.12.2023 and there is no apprehension that the accused-applicant after release on bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that the applicant is accused of committing an heinous offence and he has also criminal history of two cases of the similar nature, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Considering the fact that the applicant stated himself to be a bonafide purchaser and part of the consideration of the impugned sale deed is shown to have been given through cheques and the consideration money which was received from Ms. Saroj Yadav to whom the land was sold by the applicant is stated to have been returned and it is undertaken by the applicant that within two months of his release from the prison he will get both the sale deeds cancelled i.e. in favour of him and the one executed by him in favour of Ms. Saroj Yadav and also that his criminal history has been explained and the fact that applicant is in jail in this case since 02.12.2023 and Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted, his presence may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions, facility of bail may be granted to him.

¶17

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 and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant- Shrikant Gupta involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant after the release from the prison within two months shall get both sale deeds cancelled one in his favour and another executed by him in favour of Ms. Saroj Yadav and the violation of this condition alone shall be a sole ground available to the trial court to get cancelled the facility of bail

¶20

granted by this Court.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

Observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶27

Order Date :- 22.1.2024 Muk

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikant 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

Kavita Chaudharya Alias Kavita Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Rajnath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Mithlesh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ayush Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lucknow

Jang Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sanjay Bajpai Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.