Ajeet Kumar Gupta v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Annexe

Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kuldeep Srivastava Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

Heard Sri Chandra Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for Enforcement Directorate. Mr. Hafizur Rehman, Superintendent of Police, E.O.W., U.P. and Mr. Pramod Verma, Inspector, E.O.W., U.P. are also present today before this Court.

This bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to grant him bail in Case Crime No. 584 of 2020 u/s 409, 420 I.P.C., Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that in the same manner, the applicant has been dragged in more than 152 cases, out of which, he has been enlarged on bail in 121 cases. It is also submitted that in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been submitted by the Investigating Officer and there is no possibility of tempering of any evidence. The applicant is in jail since 16.07.2020. He next submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 11.05.2023 directing learned trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously without giving unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, but till today, charge has not been framed. 2 BAIL No. 9125 of 2025 Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 LegaL Eagle (SC) 569, learned counsel for the applicant submits that speedy trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is obligatory on the part of the State and in case trial is not proceeded, the accused may be released on bail.

Mr. Hafizur Rehman, Superintendent of Police, E.O.W., on the basis of record, submits that the applicant is kingpin of the crime in question and he collected money from ordinary citizens amounting Rs. 110 crores in the name of investment, for providing them benefit. He further submits that the Enforcement Directorate has registered the case and the involvement of the applicant is found in 155 cases.

Learned A.G.A. submits that the applicant is proprietor of M/s Anee Bullion Traders and with regard to the investment, the money was collected by him from the citizens with assurance that interest would be paid on the deposit. He further submits that in the crime in question, there are several accused persons, against whom, the charge-sheet has been filed and few of the accused persons are confined in different jails, and they could not be produced before learned trial Court, therefore, charge could not be framed. Learned A.G.A. requests that considering the seriousness of the crime, this bail application may be rejected with a time bound direction for conclusion of trial by separating the trial of the applicant.

Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for E.D. has placed written instructions dated 28.10.2025 duly signed by Mr. Onkar Nath Kashyap, Assistant Director, E.D. He submits that the case has already been registered as E.C.I.R. on 08.03.2021. He further submits that the investigation conducted by E.D. reveals that the applicant had acquired immovable properties in his name, his wife's name, i.e., Mrs. Neeharika Singh and his associate entities valued at Rs. 7.07 crores and movable properties (bank balances, FDs, etc.) amounting to Rs. 1.22 crores, aggregating to Rs. 8.29 crores. He also submits that modus-operandi of the applicant in the case in question is to allure the investors for giving 3 BAIL No. 9125 of 2025 return of 40% per annum under various deposit schemes.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleading, written instructions of E.D. as well as other relevant documents. It is informed by the officers who are present today and by learned counsel for the E.D. that more than amount of Rs. 110 crores has been snatched from the citizens in the name of investment by falsifying the return of 40% per annum. However, no license or authority is available on record for doing such type of business for giving return of 40% per annum under various deposit schemes. The involvement of the applicant is found in 155 cases. In such circumstances, the judgment relied by learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable in the present case and the applicant is not entitled for bail.

However, the trial Court is directed to separate the case of the applicant and conclude the trial in question expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court, forthwith. November 13, 2025 Arpan (Rajeev Singh,J.)