Rajeev Gupta v. Counsel for

: Gaurav Kakkar, Manoj Kumar Mishra : Anadi Krishna Narayana, Rahul Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, G.A. Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the CBI and Sri Anadi Krishna Narayan, learned counsel for the Bank.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in R.C. No. 1202021A0002, under Sections 120-B, 420, 471 IPC, Police Station CBI, ACB Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR and even in first investigation, till submission of the charge sheet, he has not been made accused but thereafter during further investigation, quite dramatically he has been made accused in the present matter.

4. He further submitted that as per allegation made in the present matter M/s Bimla Maru Fashions Pvt. Ltd. by playing fraud got approved the loan of huge amount of more than 21 crores from the bank and during further investigation it was reveled that applicant was looking the work of M/s Rameshwar Das and M/s Home Creations, the firms of his father and from his firm inflated bills in favour of M/s Bimla Maru Fashions Pvt. Ltd. were issued and except this there is no allegation.

5. He further submitted that during investigation CBI did not propose to arrest the applicant but unfortunately when in spite of repeated summons and orders, applicant could not appear before the court concerned then non bailable warrants were issued against him and pursuant to the coercive measures taken against him, applicant was arrested and he is in jail in the present matter since 23.12.2024.

6. He further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 24 other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application and out of 24 cases, 20 cases are the complaint filed under section 138 N.I. Act, two cases relates to 2 BAIL No. 5866 of 2025 Payment and Settlement Act and one case relates to section 420 IPC and one another case relating to offence punishable under section 174 A IPC which relates to the present matter.

7. He further submitted that applicant in para-39 of supplementary affidavit has given an undertaking that if he will be released on bail then he will regularly attend the trial court without fail.

8. He further submitted that considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and detention of the applicant in the present matter of almost nine months, he may be enlarged on bail.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for CBI and learned counsel for the Bank however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. However, it is a case, in which by playing fraud more than Rs. Twenty crores loan has been taken from the bank but it reflects that applicant was not named in the FIR and loan was taken by M/s Bimla Maru Fashions Pvt. Ltd. and it reflects during investigation, till submission of the charge sheet alongwith other accused, applicant has not been made accused and during further investigation, he has been made accused and as per allegation, applicant was looking the business work of M/s Rameshwar Das and M/s Home Creations, the firms of his father and from these firms, inflated bills in favour of M/s Bimla Maru Fashions Pvt. Ltd. were issued and except this, there is no other allegations against the applicant on record.

12. Record further suggests that even during further investigation, CBI did not propose to arrest the applicant but when in spite of repeated summons and warrants applicant failed to appear the trial court then trial court issued non bailable warrants against him and pursuant to the non bailable warrants issued against him, applicant was arrested on 23.12.2024 and since then, he is in jail.

13. Further, it reflects, owners of M/s Bimla Maru Fashions Pvt. Ltd. have already been released on anticipatory bail even by the court concerned and their orders have been annexed alongwith rejoinder affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application.

14. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 24 cases but out of 24 cases, 20 cases are the complaint filed under section 138 N.I. Act and 2 cases relates to Payment and Settlement Act and one case each relates to offence under section 420 and 174 A IPC and case relates to offence under section 174A IPC relating to the present matter. 3 BAIL No. 5866 of 2025

15. The law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal history bail application should not be withheld.

16. The Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 in para-10 observed as follows:- "10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail..... "

17. Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail for almost nine months and in the supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application applicant has given an undertaking that he will regularly attend the trial court without fail.

18. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

19. Further, law is settled that bail is a rule while bail rejection is an exception.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant-Rajeev Gupta, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

23. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

24. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 25, 2025 Ankita 4 BAIL No. 5866 of 2025 (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Gaurav Kakkar, Manoj Kumar Mishra : Anadi Krishna Narayana, Rahul Srivastava, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, G.A. Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the CBI and Sri Anadi Krishna Narayan, learned counsel for the Bank.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in R.C. No. 1202021A0002, under Sections 120-B, 420, 471 IPC, Police Station CBI, ACB Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR and even in first investigation, till submission of the charge sheet, he has not been made accused but thereafter during further investigation, quite dramatically he has been made accused in the present matter.

4. He further submitted that as per allegation made in the present matter M/s Bimla Maru Fashions Pvt. Ltd. by playing fraud got approved the loan of huge amount of more than 21 crores from the bank and during further investigation it was reveled that applicant was looking the work of M/s Rameshwar Das and M/s Home Creations, the firms of his father and from his firm inflated bills in favour of M/s Bimla Maru Fashions Pvt. Ltd. were issued and except this there is no allegation.

5. He further submitted that during investigation CBI did not propose to arrest the applicant but unfortunately when in spite of repeated summons and orders, applicant could not appear before the court concerned then non bailable warrants were issued against him and pursuant to the coercive measures taken against him, applicant was arrested and he is in jail in the present matter since 23.12.2024.

6. He further submitted that apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 24 other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application and out of 24 cases, 20 cases are the complaint filed under section 138 N.I. Act, two cases relates to 2 BAIL No. 5866 of 2025 Payment and Settlement Act and one case relates to section 420 IPC and one another case relating to offence punishable under section 174 A IPC which relates to the present matter.

7. He further submitted that applicant in para-39 of supplementary affidavit has given an undertaking that if he will be released on bail then he will regularly attend the trial court without fail.

8. He further submitted that considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and detention of the applicant in the present matter of almost nine months, he may be enlarged on bail.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for CBI and learned counsel for the Bank however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. However, it is a case, in which by playing fraud more than Rs. Twenty crores loan has been taken from the bank but it reflects that applicant was not named in the FIR and loan was taken by M/s Bimla Maru Fashions Pvt. Ltd. and it reflects during investigation, till submission of the charge sheet alongwith other accused, applicant has not been made accused and during further investigation, he has been made accused and as per allegation, applicant was looking the business work of M/s Rameshwar Das and M/s Home Creations, the firms of his father and from these firms, inflated bills in favour of M/s Bimla Maru Fashions Pvt. Ltd. were issued and except this, there is no other allegations against the applicant on record.

12. Record further suggests that even during further investigation, CBI did not propose to arrest the applicant but when in spite of repeated summons and warrants applicant failed to appear the trial court then trial court issued non bailable warrants against him and pursuant to the non bailable warrants issued against him, applicant was arrested on 23.12.2024 and since then, he is in jail.

13. Further, it reflects, owners of M/s Bimla Maru Fashions Pvt. Ltd. have already been released on anticipatory bail even by the court concerned and their orders have been annexed alongwith rejoinder affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application.

14. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 24 cases but out of 24 cases, 20 cases are the complaint filed under section 138 N.I. Act and 2 cases relates to Payment and Settlement Act and one case each relates to offence under section 420 and 174 A IPC and case relates to offence under section 174A IPC relating to the present matter. 3 BAIL No. 5866 of 2025

15. The law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal history bail application should not be withheld.

16. The Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 in para-10 observed as follows:- "10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail..... "

17. Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail for almost nine months and in the supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application applicant has given an undertaking that he will regularly attend the trial court without fail.

18. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purposes.

19. Further, law is settled that bail is a rule while bail rejection is an exception.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant-Rajeev Gupta, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

23. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

24. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 25, 2025 Ankita 4 BAIL No. 5866 of 2025 (Sameer Jain,J.) ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad