Reena Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28000

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2109 of 2025

Applicant :- Reena Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Singh Somvanshi,Abhishek Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State

¶8

First anticipatory bail application has been filed with regard to case crime No. 317 of 2023, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471,448, 34 IPC, P.S. Para, District Lucknow.

¶9

As per contents of F.I.R., the applicant alongwith co-accused was instrumental in illegal possession of House No. 60/2 which in fact was allotted to the mother of informant, Satyawati Gupta.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her which would be evident from the fact that there is no direct evidence against the applicant even after filing of charge sheet, which has been filed only on the basis of statement of one Shahid Ali who was found in possession of the property in question. It is submitted that criminal history of two cases have been duly explained while the applicant is under incarceration since 21st October, 2024.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that as per the statement of co-accused Shahid Ali, it was the applicant who supplied allotment letters in his name alongwith keys to the apartment. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained.

¶12

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 applicant's role in the entire allegations is primarily on the basis of statement of co-accused Shahid Ali who alleges that the applicant provided him with the fake allotment letter. The said aspect would require consideration would evidence during

¶13

course of trial. The applicant is under incarceration since 21st October, 2024 with trial only at the inception and previous criminal history has been explained.

¶14

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

¶15

"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."

¶16

"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."

¶17

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.

¶18

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let applicant Reena 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:-

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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

¶22

Code.

¶23

(iii) 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. 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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

Order Date :- 12.5.2025 prabhat

¶26

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

Reena Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of 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

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Lale @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ramdev Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohammad Gofran @ Gufran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

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