Gopa Das vs State of U.P.

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.189 of 2015, under Sections 406, 419, 420,467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of I.P.C., Police Station Myorpur, District Sonebhadra, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶10

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in the first information report and his name was found mentioned in the charge sheet, therefore, the applicant was having no knowledge about the submission of charge sheet and no summon or bailable warrant or non bailable warrant has ever been served upon him and process of proclamation has been issued against the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation/ trial. It is also submitted that the applicant is having criminal history, which has been explained in the memo of application. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

NABAIL No. 9777 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted by him that the applicant is having criminal history of two cases under Section 174-A I.P.C., which has been lodged against the applicant due to his non appearance in two cases.

¶14

Applicant was not named in the first information report and his name was found mentioned in the charge sheet and the applicant was having no knowledge about the submission of charge sheet and no summon or bailable warrant or non bailable warrant has ever been served upon him and process of proclamation has been issued against the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation/ trial. As per allegation in the first information report, co-accused persons are said to have introduced the first informant and other persons to invest in their company and thereby embezzled amount so invested. It is further submitted that co-accused Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Prayag Lal Gupta and Krishna Kant Gupta have already been granted bail by the learned Sessions Court. It is also submitted that the applicant is having criminal history, which has been explained in the memo of application.The applicant undertakes to furnish one local surety.

¶15

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶16

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Gopa Das involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on his

¶19

NABAIL No. 9777 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties ( one of them be a local surety) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-

¶22

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶24

(iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶26

(v) The applicant shall appear before the Court either in person or through counsel and he will not take unnecessary adjournment.

¶27

In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶28

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶29

December 16, 2025

¶30

RKM

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gopa Das v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopa Das 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Singhal vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Yadav @ Monu Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Tigar vs State of U.P.

Rajeev Alias Raju and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Upendra and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Arif and Another vs State of U.P.