Rajendra Kumar Gupta Alias Raju Barsainya vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41297

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9402 of 2025

Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Gupta Alias Raju Barsainya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Singh,G.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri G.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA, for the State.

¶7

The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 686 of 2024, under Sections 111, 318, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) BNS and Section 3/21 Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was not named in the FIR and as per FIR, the employees and agents of LUCC Company after receiving money from its investors did not return their money after maturity.

¶9

He further submits that applicant has been made accused in the present matter during investigation with the aid of Section 61(2) BNS but except bald and verbal allegation there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record.

¶10

He further submits that actually applicant purchased a land from Bhaskar Infracom and as per the prosecution the alleged property was purchased by applicant by using the money of the present case but there is no evidence in this regard on record.

¶11

He further submits that however, applicant has also been

¶12

challaned for offence under Section 111 BNS but there is no cogent evidence which can suggest that applicant was either member of any crime syndicate or he committed any organized crime.

¶13

He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of eleven cases but his criminal antecedents have been explained in paragraph-27 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application.

¶14

He further submits that out of eleven cases, four cases were old one but these cases were of minor offences and in the remaining cases applicant has been made accused along with the present matter with similar allegations.

¶15

He further submits, law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal antecedents bail application of an accused should not be withheld.

¶16

He further submits that in the present matter applicant is in jail since 25.1.2025.

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶18

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

¶19

From the record it reflects that as per allegation made in the FIR the agents and officers of LUCC Company after receiving deposit from the investors, did not pay their money after maturity but applicant is not named in the FIR and during investigation he has been made accused in the present matter on the ground that he purchased a land in some other district after using the money of

¶20

the present case but it appears that except bald and verbal allegation, there is no other cogent evidence in the regard on record.

¶21

Further, record suggests that with the aid of Section 61(2) BNS applicant has been made accused in the present matter but even there is no cogent evidence of conspiracy against him.

¶22

Further, however, applicant has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 BNS, i.e., organized crime but there is also no cogent evidence against him on record which can connect him with the offence under Section 111 BNS.

¶23

Further, however, applicant is also having criminal history of eleven other cases but his criminal antecedents have been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and it reflects that out of eleven cases four cases are previous cases but all these cases relate to minor offences.

¶24

Record also suggests that in remaining cases applicant has been made accused along with the present matter with similar allegations. Further, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily bail application of an accused should not be withheld on the ground of his criminal history.

¶25

Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and the bail application of an accused should not be dismissed either punitive or preventive purposes.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

Let the applicant- Rajendra Kumar Gupta @ Raju Barsainya 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 conditions:-

¶29

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

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

Order Date :- 21.3.2025 SKM

¶35

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

Rajendra Kumar Gupta Alias Raju Barsainya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Gupta Alias Raju Barsainya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indrajeet Chaudhary@ Badshah Chaudhary vs State of U.P.

Ashutosh Mishra vs State of U.P.

Santosh Pal vs State of U.P.

Raju vs State of U.P.

Harveer vs State of U.P.

Furkan Ansari and Another vs State of U.P.