Regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC in a cheating/forgery case with multiple IPC sections. Court noted bail is rule, jail exception, relied on Apex Court precedents holding pendency of other cases alone cannot bar bail, and granted bail with conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83838
Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3183 of 2024 Applicant :- Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kaushal @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Naseem Jahan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Uttam Kumar Gond, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kaushal @ Santosh Kumar Gupta under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 307 of 2020, for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police StationJagdishpur, District-Amethi, during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur vide order dated 17.02.2024.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that he has nothing to do with the day to day affairs of the company. It is further submitted that applicant has not operated any account of company in any bank during the period in question. The applicant has not received money from the investors and also has not made any signature upon the bond or cheque issued by the company. It is further submitted that applicant has criminal history of 69 cases out of which in 54 cases applicant has been granted bail. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 10.08.2021.
It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10211 of 2022 vide order dated 08.09.2022. Applicant is languishing in jail since 10.08.2021.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446 and Prabhakar Tiwari Vs.
State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 wherein the Apex Court has observed that pendency of other criminal cases against the accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
It is well settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception and refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution [Vide State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.]
No material or circumstances has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witnesses in previous criminal history.
Keeping in mind, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, present bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kaushal @ Santosh Kumar Gupta be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) 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.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.
The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 13.12.2024/A.K.T.
Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be enlarged on bail under Section 439 CrPC despite a criminal history of 69 cases.
Whether pendency of other criminal cases against the accused can be the sole basis for refusing bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and anotherRelied on
(2012) 9 SCC 446 · Who else cites this
Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and anotherRelied on
(2020) 11 SCC 648 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ BaliayRelied on
(1977) 4 SCC 308 · Who else cites this
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra PradeshRelied on
AIR 1978 SC 429 · Who else cites this
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & AnotherRelied on
(2021) 10 SCC 773 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kaushal @ Santosh Kumar Gupta
State of U.P. thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
