Avinash Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19469

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10098 of 2024

Applicant :- Avinash Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Rishi Raj Mishra, Anurag Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Srivastava,Avinash Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajeet Singh, learned State Counsel, as well as Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and perused the records.

¶7

This is second application for bail moved on behalf of the applicant.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.0296 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 302, 427, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Antu, District Pratapgarh.

¶9

The first bail application of the applicant bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2018 of 2021 was rejected by this Court by means of order dated 16.02.2024. While rejecting the first bail application of the applicant, this Court had provided that the trial shall be concluded, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production certified copy of the order. Prior to it, Bail No.8516 of 2020 filed by coaccused/Raghubhansh Gupta was allowed by means of order dated 17.12.2020 and in this order also, this Court had directed the trial court to expedite the trial of the case and conclude the

¶10

same, preferably within a period of one year.

¶11

Submission of leaned counsel for the applicant is that in spite of repetitive directions of this Court, the trial has not been concluded till date and the investigating officer is being examined. Meanwhile, the prosecution has submitted an application for bringing on record a copy of the site-plan which will necessitate re-examination of some prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has also filed an application during recording of statement of PW-6 for bringing on record a pen-drive containing statement of the deceased. The pen-drive and its contents would also require re-examination of some of the prosecution witnesses. He has submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.06.2020 and the trial is not being prosecuted diligently and expeditiously, which makes out a case for release of the applicant on bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the applicant himself is causing delay in conclusion of the trial. He has submitted that it is recorded in the order dated 16.02.2024, rejecting the first bail application of the applicant, that statement of PW-6 was continuing and still trial is at the same stage, which indicates that the applicant is causing delay in conclusion of the trial. However, the informant has not filed any counter affidavit and has not brought on record copy of the order-sheet of the trial court, which might support his contention that delay in conclusion of the trial is being caused by the applicant.

¶13

Although the State has filed a counter affidavit, opposing the bail application, copy of the order-sheet has not been brought on record along with that counter affidavit also.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is an ex-army man who was thereafter employed as a Lekhpal and then he became a teacher. It has been further submitted that all the accused persons have already been granted bail. The deceased suffered only a single injury on his head which resulted into his death and there is no allegation of causing repetitive blows. Although the deceased has suffered a single injury, the allegation of its infliction was upon four named persons and an unknown person. The incident is said to have been caused due to a property dispute, whereas an interim order was already operating in favour of the applicant since before.

¶15

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient to make out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Avinash Gupta be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶19

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶20

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶21

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 MVS/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Avinash Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. 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

Shubham Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Pawan Kumar Godiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Bablu @ Amar Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Baburam and 8 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Amitabh Kumar Srivastava @ Amitabh Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.