Anuj Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28793

Court No. - 17

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 938 of 2025

Appellant :- Anuj Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Satendra Kumar (Singh),Abhishek Misra,Durgesh Nandini,Shivam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Amrita Singh,Manvendra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Piyush Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1558 of 2025 arising out of F.I.R. No. 416 of 2022, under Sections 302, 307, 34, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Aliganj, District Lucknow.

¶9

The appellant had earlier filed Criminal Appeal No. 817 of 2023 against the order dated 03.03.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1391 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 416 of 2022, which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2024.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in jail since 05.12.2022 and till today, only two witnesses have been examined out of total 22 witnesses. It is further submitted that the appellant was implicated in one other case for the offences under Sections 323, 504,

¶11

506 I.P.C., in which, he is on bail. Proceeding under Section 110(g) Cr.P.C. was also initiated against him. It is also submitted that as per the prosecution case, the role of exhortation is assigned to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that Roshni-wife of the deceased is one of the eye witness and was also a witness of the inquest. It is vehemently submitted that the inquest report was prepared by the Investigating Officer on 04.12.2022, in which, the witnesses opined that the cause of death is 'accident'. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the F.I.R. is an afterthought. The statement of the wife of the deceased was recorded after 14 days from the date of incident, in which, she developed the case. As per the prosecution case, there are two injured witnesses, namely, Rakesh Kumar Gautam and Mukesh Kumar Gautam. Mukesh was brought to the hospital on the same day, i.e., on 04.12.2022 by Constable Mannu Singh, where he was medically examined at 10.43 a.m. Another injured-Rakesh Kumar Gautam was also medically examined on 04.12.2022 at 11.11 a.m. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the F.I.R. dated 04.12.2022 was lodged at 11.00 a.m. on the written complaint of Rakesh Kumar Gautam, who was medically examined at 11.11 a.m., which creates doubt on the presence of the Rakesh Kumar Gautam at the place of incident.

¶12

It is lastly submitted that in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial and, therefore, the appellant, who is in jail since 05.12.2022, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the appellant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the trial.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submit that husband of P.W. 3- Roshni was being chased by the appellant and other coaccused persons and they killed him by crushing with their

¶14

vehicle. It is further submitted that the informant as well as other witnesses have categorically supported the prosecution version and thereafter, the charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer. It is also submitted that the ante mortem injuries also corroborate the prosecution story. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties also submit that the witnesses are continuously appearing before the court and merely on the basis of delay in trial, the appellant is not entitled for bail in such a heinous case, in which, the husband of P.W. 3 was killed by the appellant and other accused persons by crushing him from their vehicle.

¶15

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of F.I.R., statements of the witnesses, post-mortem report of the deceased, injury report of the injured persons as well as other relevant documents, no case for bail is made out.

¶16

The appeal stands dismissed.

¶17

However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶18

Commissioner of Police, Lucknow is directed to ensure the presence of the witnesses before the trial court.

¶19

Office is directed to communicate this order to the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow concerned for necessary compliance, forthwith.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.5.2025 VKS

¶21

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

Anuj Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Gupta v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Madhubala Vs Shri M. Devraj Prin. Secy. State Tax U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs Sri Sumit Kumar Singh, Tehsildar, Tehsildar, Tehsil Milkipur, Ayodhya

Deepak Srivastava Vs Ashish Kumar Singh, Distt. Basic Education Officer, Bahraich and Another

Shiv Kumar Shukla vs Deepak Kumar Singh, Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and Others

Yashvant Pratap Rao vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. of Secondary Education, Lucknow and 6 Others

Smt. Suman Singh vs Shri Anandkar, Deputy Director Pension, Secondary Educaton, Ayodhya and Another