Ramesh Chand Gupta vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38736 of 2025

Ramesh Chand Gupta

.....Applicant(s)

Versus Central Bureau Of Investigation And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohit Singh, Ravi Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rahul Srivastava

¶5

Court No. - 73

¶6

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed by CBI is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the CBI.

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in RC 120 2017 A 0013, under Sections 120B, 420,467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) & 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station CBI ACB, Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is builder and he involved in business of construction and as per allegation he with the connivance of co-accused Gian Chand Verma the then Manager of the Bank by fraudulent means obtained loan of more than Rs.13.5Crores but did not pay the loan amount.

¶11

He further submits that applicant obtained loan on the basis of genuine documents and before disbursement of the loan entire documents were thoroughly verified by the Bank and applicant could not repay the loan amount only because he suffered huge loss in the business.

¶12

He further submits that FIR of the present case was lodged on 13.9.2017 and however, during investigation applicant fully cooperated but Investigating Officer did not propose his arrest and without his arrest charge sheet has been filed against the applicant on 23.12.2021.

¶13

He further submits that after submission of charge sheet court

¶14

BAIL No. 38736 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

concerned took the cognizance on 2.2.2022 and thereafter, however, summons were issued to the applicant but unfortunately the same could not be served upon him and on 21.3.2022 bailable warrants have been issued and thereafter on 26.4.2022 'NBW' was issued against the applicant and thereafter on 12.6.2022 applicant has been arrested.

¶17

He further submits that in a span of four months from the date of taking cognizance, 'NBW' has been issued against the applicant and, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant was an absconder.

¶18

He further submits that however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal antecedents of 19 other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in paragraph-13 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and almost in all the cases applicant is on bail.

¶19

He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 12.6.2022, i.e., for the last more than three years and till date not even a single prosecution witnesses could be examined and, therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of trial.

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the CBI vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that it is a case of bank fraud and applicant along with several others including co-accused Gian Chand Verma , the then Manger of the Bank defrauded the Bank in the tune of more than Rs. Thirteen Crores and, therefore, allegations against him are quite serious.

¶21

He further submits that even after submission of charge sheet when summons were issued then applicant did not appear and he could be brought before the court when he was arrested pursuant to the 'NBW' issued against him.

¶22

Learned counsel for the CBI however could not dispute that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2017 and charge sheet in the present matter has been filed in 2021 but cognizance could only be taken in 2022 and within four months 'NBW' has been issued against him and thereafter he has been arrested.

¶23

He further could not dispute the fact that during investigation

¶24

BAIL No. 38736 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

Investigating Officer did not arrest the applicant though he fully cooperated with the investigation.

¶27

Learned counsel for the CBI, however, further submitted that apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 19 other cases and almost in all these cases also there is allegation of fraud and cheating against him and, therefore, he prima facie appears to be habitual offender but he could not dispute the fact that except one case in all these cases applicant is on bail.

¶28

Learned counsel for the CBI also could not dispute the fact that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 12.6.2022 i.e., for the last more than three years.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶30

However, as per allegation applicant was builder and he along with the Chief Manager of the Bank, who is also co-accused in the case defrauded the Bank in the tune of more than Rs. Thirteen Crores but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2017 and during investigation applicant fully cooperated with the investigation but Investigating Officer did not propose his arrest and without his arrest he submitted charge sheet against him on 23.12.2021.

¶31

Further, however, record suggests that applicant after submission of charge sheet when summons were issued then he did not appear before the court concerned and he was arrested on 12.6.2022 but it reflects that after submission of charge sheet cognizance was taken on 2.2.2022 and within four months it appears that 'NBW' has been issued against him and he has been arrested. Considering this fact the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is not absconder, cannot be ruled out.

¶32

Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal antecedents of as many as 19 other cases but his entire criminal antecedents have been duly explained in tabular form in paragraph-13 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and it reflects that except in one case, in all other cases, applicant has been released on bail.

¶33

BAIL No. 38736 of 2025

¶34

4

¶35

Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 12.6.2022, i.e., for the last more than three years and till date only one prosecution witness could be examined.

¶36

The Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 observed as:

¶37

"The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents.................."

¶38

Further, the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A.Najeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another passed in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 dated 03.07.2024 observed that right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation an accused is entitled to be released on bail even in serious matters if delay in trial is not attributed to him. In the present matter, CBI could not place any material which can suggest that applicant is responsible for delay in trial.

¶39

Further, law is also settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be withheld either for preventive or punitive purpose.

¶40

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶41

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶42

Let the applicant- Ramesh Chand Gupta be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following

¶43

BAIL No. 38736 of 2025

¶44

5

¶45

conditions:-

¶46

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶47

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶48

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶49

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶50

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶51

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶52

November 19, 2025

¶53

SKM

¶54

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramesh Chand Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another

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

Shahwaqar vs State of U.P.

Karan vs State of U.P.

Smt. Ankita Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Swami vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Another

Akhilesh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Ankush Sharma vs State of U.P.