Dharmendra Gupta @ Kallu vs. State Of U.P.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Dharmendra Gupta @ Kallu, finding it a fit case for bail without commenting on the merits of the case. The Court considered the complicity of the accused, the severity of the punishment, and the totality of the facts and circumstances. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Several conditions were imposed, including undertaking not to seek adjournments on evidence dates, remaining present on each fixed date, and potential proceedings under Section 229-A IPC or Section 174-A IPC for misuse of liberty or failure to appear. The Trial Court was also directed to make efforts to conclude the trial within one year of the applicant's release. It was clarified that the observations made while granting bail would not affect the trial judge's independent opinion. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The applicant, Dharmendra Gupta @ Kallu, sought enlargement on bail during his trial in Case Crime No. 329 of 2021, under Sections 380 and 411 IPC, at P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur. The applicant claimed innocence and stated he was falsely implicated. He is the owner of a jewelry shop with GST No. 09BXZPG5084K1ZJ, and asserted that the recovered jewelry belonged to his shop. The applicant also claimed no prior criminal history, with subsequent cases allegedly filed after his implication in the present case. He has been in jail since June 21, 2021, and argued there was no likelihood of him fleeing or tampering with evidence. The State, through the learned AGA, opposed the bail application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant, Dharmendra Gupta @ Kallu, is entitled to be released on bail during the trial for offenses under Sections 380 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: The applicant argued for bail based on his innocence, alleged false implication, ownership of the jewelry shop from which the recovered items purportedly originated, lack of prior criminal history, and the fact that he has been incarcerated since June 21, 2021. He also contended there was no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. Revenue/State: The learned AGA opposed the bail application.