Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37286 of 2025

Ramesh Chandra Gupta

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Prateek Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 70

¶5

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Ramesh Chandra Gupta with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1520 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive of informant regarding the business transaction. He further admit the fact that some amount has already been paid to the informant by cash and forged sale deed that has been alleged in the F.I.R. was executed in favour of the informant as a security, because the applicant took certain money from the informant, the said money was duly return by the applicant to the informant, in spite of the fact, the present F.I.R. was lodged against the accused applicant. He further submits that there is material contradiction between the averments made in the F.I.R. and in the statement given by the informant before the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. He further submits that 19 criminal cases have been registered against the applicant except the present one, and the same has been duly explained in para no. 28 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He further submits that trial is not

¶9

BAIL No. 37286 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

likely to be concluded in near future. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant is languishing in jail since 08.06.2023.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that accused applicant Ramesh Chandra Gupta has executed the forged sale deed in favour of the informant and grab huge amount of Rs. 46,56,000/- from the informant, whereas the disputed property had already been sold out by the accused applicant previously in favour of one Rajendra Prasad in the year 2013 and again the disputed property was fradulently executed in favour of informant Sumit Saxena. He further submits that when the above fact came into the knowledge of informant at the time of taking over the possession of land etc., till then, Rs. 37 lakh laon from Panjab Nation Bank, through a Demand Draft no. 79194 dated 10.12.2014 was issued only with the connivance of the builder Ramesh Gupta. The concerned Authority of the PNB Bank, Ghaziabad inquired the above facts and informed the informant Sumit Saxena that a loan has already been issued in the name of builder regarding the disputed plot and the aforesaid plot was sold in favour of one Rajendra Prasad earlier in the years 2013, thus the accused applicant has no right over the land to execute the same property in favour of the informant. Both the sale deed are available on record and from perusal of the same, it transpires that plot no. K.A159 was initially executed by the accused applicant in favour of Rajendra Prasad on 09.04.2013 by taking consideration amount of Rs. 45 lakh and thereafter, the same disputed land K.A.-159 was executed by accused applicant in favour of informant Sumit Saxena on 11.12.2014 after taking consideration amount of Rs.

¶13

BAIL No. 37286 of 2025

¶14

3

¶15

46,50,000/-. He further submits that the complainant stated in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. that the accused applicant has taken the loan amount which was issued by the PNB Bank i.e. Rs. 37 lakh and the rest amount by way of cash, thought, he has paid the aforesaid amount to the builder Ramesh Gupta and taken the possession over the land, but in the year 2016 concerned authority of the Bank informed that the aforesaid land was sold out previously in favour of Rejendra Prasad by the accused applicant in order to grab huge amount. He further submits that accused applicant has long criminal history of 20 cases, among them most of the cases related to forgery etc., if, in case, accused applicant is released on bail, he will pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses, thus, the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence.

¶16

At this stage, it is apparent from perusal of the statement of the informant and photocopy of two sale deeds which are available on record that earlier in the year 2013, accused applicant Ramesh Chandra Gupta had executed sale deed of plot no. K.A.-159 in favour of one Rajendra Prasad and again on 10.12.2014, he executed forged sale deed of plot no. K.A-159 in favour of the informant and grab huge amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs. 46,56,000/-. This fact is also available on record in the statement of informant that he had taken loan of Rs. 37 lakh from Panjab Nation Bank and a Demand Draft no. 79194 dated 10.12.2014 was handed over to the accused applicant Ramesh Gupta at the time of execution of sale deed. When the accused applicant had already sold the property in favour of Rajendra Prasad previously in the year 2013, then, he has no right over the land to execute the same property in favour of the informant. The second sale deed of the same plot has been executed by the accused applicant with the intention to to grab huge amount of sale consideration.

¶17

In view of above, looking to the gravity, nature and magnitude of the offence, role, involvement and complicity of the accusedapplicant, long criminal background/ conduct of accused, severity

¶18

BAIL No. 37286 of 2025

¶19

4

¶20

of punishment, reasonable apprehension to interfere the investigation/ trial and pressurize /intimidate the prosecution witnesses, tempering with the evidence and taking into consideration overall circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason sufficient to allow the bail application. Hence, the bail application of accused-applicant Ramesh Chandra Gupta is rejected .

¶21

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶22

November 21, 2025 Bhanu

¶23

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amlesh Singh vs State of U.P.

Asif @ Faizan @ Katilaiya vs State of U.P.

Vikas Yadav vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Kumar Kashyap vs State of U.P.

Rakesh vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev @ Monu vs State of U.P.