Allowed

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

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2024BAIL/931/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving Sections 409, 420, 504, and 506 IPC. The Court noted the charge sheet was filed, the applicant was a clerk with no specific allegation against him, and co-accused had already been granted bail. Bail was granted with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to furnishing a personal bond with two sureties and compliance with conditions against witness tampering, cooperation in trial, and non-commission of crimes.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9386

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 931 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary and charge sheet in this case has already been filed.

¶9

Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, 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 accused/applicant- Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 875/2020, under Sections 409, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, during trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The identically placed co-accused and other co-accused persons, namely, Kanhaiya Kaushal, Basudev Goswami, Dharnidhar Upadhyay, Om Shankar Kaushal and Neelam Kaushal have been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court, vide orders dated 11.5.2023, 14.10.2023, 18.5.2023, 18.5.2023 and 1.8.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Applications No. 13817 of 2022, 11698 of 2022, 6442 of 2023, 15096 of 2022 and 9630 of 2023, respectively. However, the applicant was only a clerk in the said company and no recovery of any kind has been made either from the applicant or on his pointing and he is in jail in this case since 10.8.2021.

¶12

It is further submitted that criminal history of 28 cases has been alleged against the applicant but all these cases are based on identical allegations levelled against the applicant and since

¶13

the applicant was not having any authority to manage the company, he may not be held liable vicariously. 28 cases are shown as the criminal history of the applicant, however in 15 of such cases, applicant has been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court 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.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant.

¶15

Perusal of the record would prima facie reveal that the company, namely, M/s Anil Bullion Traders was launched by one Ajeet Kumar Gupta and the applicant is said to be a clerk in the said Company. The First Information Report would reveal that the informant and other victims shown in the FIR have deposited about Rs. 85,52,000/- in the hope of receiving enhanced amount on maturity. However, the Managing Director of the Company was admittedly co-accused Ajeet Kumar Gupta and it is not alleged specifically that any amount was paid by any victim to the instant applicant. Identically placed co-accused and other co-accused persons, namely, Kanhaiya Kaushal, Basudev Goswami, Dharnidhar Upadhyay, Om Shankar Kaushal and Neelam Kaushal have been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court. The applicant is in jail in this case since 10.8.2021. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted. His presence may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶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 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.

¶17

Let the applicant- Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar 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:-

¶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 are only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and the same shall not have any bearing on the trial of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 1.2.2024 Muk

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikas Yadav Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Shivendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, District-Lucknow

Vishnu Pratap Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ashik Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow, U.P. and 3 Others

Anoop Kumar Chaudhari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Home Sectt. Lucknow

Sharafat Ali Alias Sarafraz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others