Praveen Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4312 of 2026

Praveen Kumar Gupta		.	....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Aman Ahsan, Bhatia	Shivam	Yadav, Udai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 71

¶5

HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 509 of 2001, under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC, P.S.- Delhi Gate, District - Meerut, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused applicant has been falsely implicated by the Trade Tax Officer in FIR dated 31.10.2001. The allegation in the FIR is of trade tax evasion by the Sakti Enterprises run by the applicant. There is no exact figure of tax evasion. After the submission of charge sheet. The applicant has challenged it in revisional jurisdiction of this Court in the year 2005. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in order dated 26.7.2005 has stayed the proceedings of the case. This stay was continued up to 18.5.2022 when the revision was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is thereafter, that the processes have been issued by the trial court but accused applicant has not been served with the summons, bailable warrant and non-bailable warrant. The applicant has no criminal history. The accused applicant wants to appear before the trial court but apprehends arrest. Hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the

¶10

NABAIL No. 4312 of 2026

¶11

2

¶12

applicant.

¶13

The scope of ambit of anticipatory bail is encapsulated in three insightful judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court right from Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565 , Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 , wherein it is consistently held by Hon’ble Apex Court that while granting anticipatory bail, the Court should considering the application of the applicant to evaluate the threat or apprehension of arrest vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of accusation, criminal antecedent of the accused, false or exaggerated implication, need of custodial interrogation, willingness of the accused to cooperate in investigation and trial and the conduct of the accused and flight risk.

¶14

Considering that the accused applicant was not arrested during investigation. After submission of charge sheet, the proceedings were stayed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and that the processes have never been served upon the applicant, the gravity of accusation, and apprehension of arrest in the case vis-a-vis low flight risk and assurance of the accused in cooperating with the investigation and trial, is of considered view to grant anticipatory bail.

¶15

The applicant- Praveen Kumar Gupta involved in the aforesaid case crime shall appear before the trial court or the Investigating Officer, as the case may be within 30 days from the date of this order and shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions :-

¶16

(i) 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

NABAIL No. 4312 of 2026

¶19

3

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/their counsel.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶25

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶26

May 5, 2026

¶27

Krishna*

¶28

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

Praveen Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Gupta 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sahjad Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt.) Lko. and Another

Suresh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Chhatrpal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mahaveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ompal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Dubey Vs State of U.P.