Allowed

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

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2024BAIL/1643/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought bail in a case involving offences under Sections 420 and 409 IPC. The Court noted that the trial had not commenced, the offences were triable by a Magistrate, and the applicant had been in jail for several years. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions regarding witness tampering and court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the applicant Ajeet Kumar Gupta on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Ajeet Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65477

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1643 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Sinha,Akshat Sinha,Gaurav Verma

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Kumar Mishra,Brij Bhushan Singh,Pranjal Apurva

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that the accused persons formed Anee Bullion Company about 10 years before and allured general public by offering 40 per cent return on investments. Investment was made by the public, including the complainant. Gradually, Ajit Gupta, present applicant has formed many other companies. On maturity, the money has not been returned by the accused person(s).

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offences are triable by Magistrate. The applicant has a criminal history of 152 cases which has been explained by him in the bail application. The applicant has been released on bail in 71 cases. The applicant is in jail since 16.7.2020. Till date, the trial has not commenced.

¶10

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not

¶12

dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as per the admitted case between the parties, trial has not yet commenced, the offence is triable by Magistrate, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail as also the judgment in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of Maharashtra and another Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 (arising out of SLP(Crl) No.3809 of 2024, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

6. Let the applicant Ajeet Kumar Gupta, involved in Case Crime No.905 of 2020 under sections 420, 409 I.P.C., P.S. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶19

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.

¶20

(v) 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.

¶21

(vi) 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.

¶22

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶23

Order Date :- 21.9.2024

¶24

kkb/

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ghanshyam Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health U.P. Lko. and Another

Santosh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. Lko.

Neeraj Sahu vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Govt. Lko.

Juvenile X Thru. His Father Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Ajeet Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Annexe Bhawan Lko.

Ajeet Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Annexe Bhawan, Lucknow