Dharmendra Kaushal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 08 Jul 2025
- Bench
- KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR
- Neutral citation
- 2025:AHC-LKO:38566
Outcome
Bail granted
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Constitution of India art. 21
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 82, 313
Judgment
Advocate appearing on behalf of State as well as perused the record. The application seeks bail in Case Crime No. 702 of 2023 under Sections 409, 420 & 120-B IPC, P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow. As per contents of FIR, allegation levelled is that the main accused Ajeet Kumar Gupta induced the informant to invest a substantial amount of money in two firms by the name of Anee Bullion Group & Industries Private Limited and Eye Vision Limited Company. It is alleged that despite promise made of substantial returns from the investment so made, neither principal amount nor any interest was paid thereupon. It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the FIR itself in which entire gist of allegation has been levelled against main co-accused Ajeet Kumar Gupta with the applicant only being introduced as a person who was in collusion with a Company.
The applicant is under incarceration since 10.8.2021. It is further submitted that co-accused Ajai Prakash Upadhyay @ Ajai Kumar Upadhyay having similar role has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2061 of 2024 and other co-accused persons namely Shiv Kumar Goswami and Neelam Kaushal have also been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No.12883 of 2024 and Criminal Misc Bail Application No.12746 of 2024 respectively. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed bail application but does not dispute the that it is a case of parity. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under:- "21.
In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. " "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. " Prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that primary gist of allegation of defrauding the informant has been levelled against main accused Ajeet Kumar Gupta while applicant is being indicated as being a co-conspirator.
Operative part
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and the facts that co-accused Ajai Prakash Upadhyay @ Ajai Kumar Upadhyay has already been provided anticipatory bail and other co-accused, named above, have also been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court, the applicant has explained the criminal history in paragraph 14 to the bail application and he is under incarceration since 10.8.2021 and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant, Dharmendra Kaushal, involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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. 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. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the bail application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India — art. 21; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 82, 313.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 08 Jul 2025. The bench was KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR.
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.