APPLICATION No. - 28230 of 2025 Aman Gupta State of U.P v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 87, 109, 137(2), 351(2)
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ss. 180, 183
- Constitution of India art. 21
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 82, 313
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article…
Judgment
Operative part
Per contra learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the victim is minor aged about 15 years and as per High School Certificate, date of birth of the victim is 26.07.2010. He further submitted that innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, bail application is allowed.
Considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 677, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him 3 BAIL No. 28230 of 2025 in accordance with law under Section 174-A I.P.C./209. B.N.S. (v) 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 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. September 4, 2025 Asha (Santosh Rai,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 87, 109, 137(2), 351(2); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 180, 183; Constitution of India — art. 21; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 82, 313.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.