Allowed

Prashant Kumar Gupta Alias Prashant Lohiya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024BAIL/279/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, and 201 IPC. The court noted the significant delay in concluding the trial despite prior directions and released the applicant on personal bond with conditions to prevent interference with evidence or failure to appear in court, while directing the trial court to conclude the trial expeditio

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence, not seeking adjournments, and appearing in court; trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously.

Prashant Kumar Gupta Alias Prashant Lohiya vs State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 279 of 2024 Applicant :- Prashant Kumar Gupta Alias Prashant Lohiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Ali Moid Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramakar Shukla

¶3

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Piyush Singh, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P., Sri Vaibhav Sangam Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.285 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 201 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Sultanpur, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he is in jail since 1.6.2017. He further submits that first bail application was rejected on 15.2.2018 passed in Bail Application No.10582 of 2017 due to non prosecution, therefore, second bail application was also rejected vide order dated 27.11.2018 passed in Bail Application No.2883 of 2018 and trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously but the trial was not proceeded then third bail application no.7864 of 2019 was filed which was also dismissed on 23.7.2021 with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order but trial has not been concluded till today.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that all the witness of fact have already been examined and there is no possibility of tampering of evidence. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Appeal No.2790 of 2024, in which, the appellant was enlarged on bail who was confined for a period of five years. He further

¶8

submits that applicant does not have any criminal antecedent and he is ready to cooperate in the trial. He further submits that he will not involve in any illegal activities in the future. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submit that applicant killed his wife and also relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.704 of 2024, but they do not dispute this fact that applicant is in jail since 1.6.2017.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant material available on record, contents of F.I.R., other relevant documents, nature of offence as well as facts and circumstances of the case, it is undisputed fact that applicant is in jail since 1.6.2017 and at the time of rejection of third bail application direction was issued to the trail court to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of one year but till today trial has not been concluded, therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Let applicant - Prashant Kumar Gupta Alias Prashant Lohiya - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶13

(ii) 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

¶14

evidence.

¶15

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

¶16

(iv) 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 IPC.

¶17

(v) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶18

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶21

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court for necessary compliance, forthwith.

¶22

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 Gaurav/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prashant Kumar Gupta Alias Prashant Lohiya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Kumar Gupta Alias Prashant Lohiya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Samod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lucknow and Another

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

Rashid @ Khunai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 2 Others

Munnulal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Hanuman Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another