Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

This is the second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 13.11.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 11754 of 2024.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶12

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶13

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 634 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶14

The present case arises from the aforementioned FIR lodged on 05.09.2021 against nine individuals, including the applicant, alleging that the accused persons induced the informant and several others to invest in Eye Vision India Credit Cooperative Society Limited/Anee Bullion and Industries Pvt. Ltd., and that the invested amounts were not refunded.

¶15

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is neither a director nor a manager of the said company; he merely worked as a clerk in Anee Bullion Group of Companies. It is further submitted that the applicant has a criminal history of 72 cases, out of which he has already been granted bail in 67. Specific averments to this effect have been made in

¶16

BAIL No. 12512 of 2024

¶17

2

¶18

the supplementary affidavit, and copies of the relevant bail orders have been collectively filed as Annexure SA-1.

¶19

Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Anjani Kumar Kaushal, who was assigned a similar role, has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.09.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11145 of 2023. Accordingly, parity with the said coaccused has been sought.

¶20

It is also submitted that the applicant is in custody since 10.08.2021. There is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses, and he undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail, if granted.

¶21

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶22

Having regard to the facts that co-accused Anjani Kumar Kaushal, who was assigned a similar role, has already been enlarged on bail; the offences in question are triable by a Magistrate; the applicant has satisfactorily explained his criminal history of 72 cases; and considering that he is languishing in jail since 10.08.2021, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant on the ground of parity.

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶24

Let the applicant involved in Case Crime No. 634 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District 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:-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(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.

¶28

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek

¶29

BAIL No. 12512 of 2024

¶30

3

¶31

any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶32

(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 in accordance with law.

¶33

(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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶34

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present anticipatory bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶35

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶36

October 31, 2025 R.C.

¶37

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Vimal Kumar Pandey @ Bose Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

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

Awadhesh Kumar Omar Vs State of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Bharat Kumar Mishra and 127 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Ayush Lko. and 3 Others

Rashid @ Mohd. Rashid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home ) Lko.

Dharmendra Madhesiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.