Manica Gupta vs Abhijit Srivastva & Anr on 30 June, 2023

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Manica Gupta vs Abhijit Srivastva & Anr on 30 June, 2023

Bench: Sushil Kukreja

                                          1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                             .
                                          Cr. MP(M) No. 728 of 2023





                                          Decided on: 28.06.2023
    _______________________________________________________





     Manica Gupta                                              ....Petitioner
                          Versus
     Abhijit Srivastva & Anr.                                ....Respondents





     Coram
     The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
     Whether approved for reporting?1
     For the petitioner
                         r        :           Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate.

     For the respondents              :       Mr. M.A. Khan, Senior
                                              Advocate with Mr. Azmat
                                              Hayat Khan and Ms. Hem
                                              Kanta Kaushal, Advocate, for


                                              respondent No. 1.
                                              Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional
                                              Advocate General, for




                                              respondent No. 2.
     Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral)

The present petition under Section 439(2), read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioner/complainant seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 1 vide order dated 03.02.2023, passed in Cr.

MP(M) No. 196 of 2023 and also that some stringent 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2023 20:47:33 :::CIS 2

condition may be imposed upon respondent No. 1 so .

that he shall remain present for trial and he will not assume Canadian citizenship during the pendency of the trial.

2. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as the prayer for cancellation of bail is concerned, the petitioner does not press the same, however, the petitioner has apprehension that respondent No. 1 may visit Canada from United Kingdom and assume Canadian citizenship and for that purpose, some stringent condition may be imposed upon him.

3. This Court while granting bail to respondent No. 1 had imposed the following conditions upon him:-

"(i) That the petitioner will appear before the Court and the Investigating Officer whenever required;

(ii) That he will 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 from disclosing any facts to the Court or the police;

::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2023 20:47:33 :::CIS 3

(iii) That he will not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor they will try to win over the prosecution .

witnesses in any manner;

(iv) That he will not leave India without prior permission of the Court."

4. Whereas, while passing the order for releasing his passport, the following conditions were imposed upon him:-

"(i) That the petitioner shall ensure his presence on the dates as and when his presence is indispensable during the trial with a further direction to ensure his representation on each and every date of hearing before the trial Court through an advocate;

(ii) That the petitioner shall not visit any other country except United Kingdom;

(iii) That the petitioner shall visit India and report to the Investigating Officer after every six months till the conclusion of the trial;

(iv) That the petitioner shall submit the address of his employer at London as well as address of his place of stay at London before the learned trial Court;

(v) That the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 50 lacs with the trial Court."

5. From the perusal of the aforesaid conditions, it is apparent that specific condition has been imposed upon respondent No. 1 that he will not ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2023 20:47:33 :::CIS 4 visit any other country except United Kingdom.

Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be in the fitness of things if respondent No. 2-State is directed to send copies of the orders of granting bail to the petitioner and releasing passport in his favour to the Embassy of United Kingdom at New Delhi in order to apprise it about the conditions imposed by this Court upon respondent No. 1.

6. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, alongwith pending application(s), if any.







                                        ( Sushil Kukreja )
    June 28, 2023                             Judge





         (raman)




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2023 20:47:33 :::CIS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court