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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1965

Court No. - 31

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12973 of 2024

Applicant :- Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Ajay Kumar,Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. This case has been heard through Video Conferencing.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyanendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 348 of 2020, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., Police Station - Mawai, District - Ayodhya/Faizabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that supplementary affidavit has been filed by him in Registry.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Basudev Goswami has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 4.4.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2823 of 2022. It is further submitted that since the case of the applicant is at par to the coaccused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is also stated that criminal history of 72 cases assigned to the applicant stands explained as in 54 cases, he has been enlarged on bail and in rest of the cases, either the bail is pending or he has yet to apply for bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.08.2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶11

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of parity to the coaccused has not been disputed by him.

¶12

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶13

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in the light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 , without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶15

Let the applicant- Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶17

(ii) 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.

¶18

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

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date:- 10.1.2025 Siddhant

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manjeet Singh vs State of U.P.

Ritesh Pratap Singh vs State of U.P.

Dhruv Singh Rajawat vs State of U.P. and Another

Dheeraj Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Paswan vs State of U.P.

Rahul Arora vs State of U.P. and Another