Santosh Gupta v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48718 of 2023 Applicant :- Santosh Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 565 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria during the pendency of the trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is neither owner nor Director of the company. The applicant was one of the employees of the said company. The alleged amount was deposited in the account of the company. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transaction. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Ajay Upadhyay has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42071 of 2023, Ajay Upadhyay v. State of U.P., vide order dated 03.10.2023. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-14 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 10.08.2021 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant is neither owner nor Director of the company. He was one of the employees of the said company. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transaction. The amount has been credited in the account of the company. Identically placed co-accused Ajay Upadhyay has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two years and three months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicant-Santosh Gupta, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

(iv) shall not leave the country without leave of the trial court.

¶7In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 1.12.2023 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad