Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 43594 (ALL)

MUNSHI GUPTA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

BAIL/13099/2025 · 2025-04-29

Krishan Pahal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67626 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13099 of 2025 Applicant :- Munshi Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sapan Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to the informant has been served on 13.04.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. IInd Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Sapan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 437 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Sahjanwa, District - Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The FIR was instituted against another person and that too after a delay of three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused either. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C./ 183 BNSS and also by an application moved by her before the Investigating Officer. She has given birth to a baby subsequent to the said corporeal relationship. She has also stated that she had married the applicant in a temple and is willing to stay with him as husband and wife, as such, the instant case is just a misuse of process of court. It is also stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major although she herself stated her age to be 17 years in her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 7. Learned counsel has next stated that criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained as the said offence is bailable. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that the victim in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C./ 183 BNSS seems to be a consenting party coupled by the fact that she herself stated that she had married the applicant, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Munshi Gupta, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date:- 30.4.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad