Allahabad High Court
RAVI GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered an anticipatory bail application filed by Ravi Gupta under Section 482 of the CrPC in connection with a loan‑fraud case (Crime No. 356 of 2025) involving alleged receipt of brokerage and facilitation of a Rs. 32 lakh loan. The applicant claimed innocence and pledged cooperation with the investigation, while the State argued that he, as a government servant, had participated in the illicit transaction. Citing the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, the Court examined the nature of the accusation, the applicant’s role, and the risk of flight or evidence tampering. After weighing the submissions, the Court found that the criteria for granting anticipatory bail were satisfied. Consequently, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and specific conditions, including non‑tampering with evidence and not leaving India without permission.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, Ravi Gupta, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the CrPC in view of the alleged loan‑fraud allegations.
- Whether the nature and gravity of the offences, the applicant’s antecedents, and the risk of flight or tampering with evidence justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS, 2023 — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2), 61(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- loan fraud
- bail conditions
- flight risk
- evidence tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 2339 of 2026
Ravi Gupta
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Upadhyay, Ambrish Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Hari Shanker Srivastava, Nikhil
Srivastava
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Aditya Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.
Nikhil Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant as well as Shri
Umashankar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in
Case Crime No. 356 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2),
351(2) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023, Police Station- Shalimar Garden,
District- Ghaziabad with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant
may be released on bail.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is
further submitted that the co-accused Sunil Kumar Gupta, who is said to
have taken loan from the first informant, has already been granted regular
bail by the Sessions Court. It is further submitted that the applicant has
been assigned the role of being associate with the co-accused persons. It
was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and
he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or
Court. It has been stated that in case, applicant is granted anticipatory
bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the
investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for
anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant, being a government
NABAIL No. 2339 of 2026
2
servant, has indulged in loan transaction between the applicant and the
first informant and he has received certain amount as brokerage and he
has received loan amount in his bank account from the co-accused Sunil
Kumar Gupta.
5. As per first information report, the co-accused Sunil Kumar Gupta has
received Rs. 32,00,000/- loan from the first informant and the applicant is
said to have extended help in the said transaction. Co-accused Sunil
Kumar Gupta has already been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court.
6. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.
State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider
nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of
accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available
material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the
accused has also to be taken into consideration.
7. In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding
anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, role
of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without
expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
8. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
9. In the event of arrest of the applicant- Ravi Gupta involved in the
aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a
personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear
before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court
concerned;
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer;
NABAIL No. 2339 of 2026
3
(iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the
liberty of bail.
(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the
Court concerned.
10. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty
to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted
to the applicant.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
March 19, 2026
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…