Ajeet Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Annexe Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28343

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1549 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Gupta

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Annexe Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Sinha,Akshat Sinha,Gaurav Verma

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶9

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 868 of 2020 under Sections 409, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶10

As per contents of FIR, applicant is shown as a Managing Director of a company in the name of Anee Bullion Traders and has deceived the informant into investing a substantial amount of money on the false pretext of providing monthly interest @ 3.33 %. Allegation levelled is that the informant was refunded neither the principal nor the interest.

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that the entire investment in fact had been made in Eye Vision India Credit Cooperative Society Limited and not in Anee bullion as would be evident from the counter affidavit itself. It is submitted that the said cooperative society is a separate entity without applicant having any designation or office in the same. It is also submitted that applicant is under incarceration for more than four and half years since 16th July, 2020 and as yet evidence has not commenced. It is submitted that applicant has previous criminal history of 152 cases pertaining to the same allegations which have been duly explained. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of Maharshtra and another passed in Criminal Appeal no. 2787 of 2024 (arising

¶12

out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3809 of 2024), the relevant portion of which is as follows:-

¶13

"19 If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

¶14

20 We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be."

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that the contents of F.I.R. clearly indicate complicity of applicant in the allegations levelled against him. It is submitted that investment in fact was made in Anee Bullion Traders and was subsequently transferred to the Eye Vision India Credit Cooperative Society merely in order to cheat the investors. It is however admitted that the bonds which were produced during course of investigation pertains to investment being made in Eye Vision India Credit Cooperative Society Limited.

¶16

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that although the gist of allegations has been levelled against the applicant primarily as Managing Director of Anee Bullion Traders with allegations of investment having been made therein but as per counter affidavit, all the bonds submitted during investigation by the informant pertains to investment being made in the Eye Vision India Credit Cooperative Society. The aspect of applicant having any role in the said society would be subject matter of evidence during trial. The applicant is under incarceration since 16th July, 2020 and as per trial court report dated 24th April, 2025, evidence has not yet commenced in the proceedings. It is also evident that coaccused have been enlarged on bail.

¶17

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is

¶18

not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶19

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶20

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶21

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶22

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let applicant Ajeet Kumar Gupta involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶24

(i) 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 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.

¶25

(ii) 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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial

¶27

and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶29

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 prabhat

¶30

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajeet Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Annexe Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeet Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Annexe 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

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Divisional Manag Vs Smt. Sunita Devi and 6 Ors.

Score Well International School, Lakhimpur Kheri Thru. Mgr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education, Lko. and Others

Madan Ji Shukla Pno. 842462859 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Birendra Kumar Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Prayagraj Colllege of Pharmacy, Prayagraj Thru. Member Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Technical Education, Lucknow and Others

Ruchi Awasthi @ Dolly Vs Saurabh Tiwari