VIKASH KUMAR GUPTA ALIAS VIKASH KUMAR AND 2 OTHERS v. THE STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER
NABAIL/1044/2025 · 2025-08-19
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 158390 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 158390 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48384 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1044 of 2025 Applicant :- Vikash Kumar Gupta Alias Vikash Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajey Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajey Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants, Ms. Shikha Sinha, the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No.2
2. The instant application has been filed by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.86 of 2025 under Sections 351(3), 352, 115(2), 316(5) of B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Fakharpur, District- Bahraich.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 03.04.2025 against the applicants and Krishna Gupta, proprietor of Krishna Rice Mill, stating that the informant had entered into an agreement with co-accused Krishna Gupta, proprietor of Krishna Rice Mill, to purchase nine truck loads of rice from the accused persons and he has transferred Rs.1,05,16,134/- as sale
consideration. The accused persons supplied merely seven truck loads of rice and they did not supply two trucks of rice worth Rs.21,37,870/- and they did not return the money of the informant. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application it has been stated that the applicants are innocent having no criminal history and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. 6. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and she has submitted that as per the instructions provided to her, the applicant No.1 is involved in two other cases. However, particulars of those cases show that the description of the accused person in that case is different from description of the applicant No.1 and it appears that those cases do not relate to the applicant No.1. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the anticipatory bail application and he has submitted that all the accused
persons have jointly duped the applicant of money exceeding Rs.21 Lakhs and their conduct dis-entitles them from being granted anticipatory bail. 8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the FIR allegations discloses a commercial transaction between the informant and other co-accused persons and partial breach of contract made by the other co-accused persons, which dispute is essentially of civil nature; that the applicants have no criminal history, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed.
In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicants before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court : (i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicants 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; (iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. . (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)
Order Date :- 19.8.2025 -Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench