Law does not expect instigation to be in a specific structure or that it should just be in words: High Court of Allahabad

The Penal Code ends up being relevant regardless of whether the abettor is absent when the offence abetted is committed given that he has instigated the commission of the offence or has connected with at least one or more different people in a conspiracy to commit an offence and in accordance with that conspiracy, the case held by the High court of Allahabad through the learned bench by single bench: Hon’ble Krishan Pahal, J.In the matter of Dr Rajeev Gupta M.D. Versus  State Of U.P. Thru. Sp Cbi/Acb Naval  .[ CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. – 299 of 2022 ] of 2021 dealth with an issue mentioned above.

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Case No.690 of 2021, Crime No. RC0062019A0008, under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of PC Act, 1988 and Section 109 IPC, Police Station CBI/ACB, District Lucknow, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

The present case has been registered on the basis of a written complaint by Shri Anmol Sachan, PI/CBI/ACB/Lucknow, dated 23/05/2019 against Dr Sunita Gupta, the then Sr. D.M.O., Northern Railway (N.R.), Divisional Hospital, Charbagh, Lucknow and her husband Dr Rajeev Gupta, Professor, KGMU, Lucknow, U/s 109 IPC & Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C. Act, 1988. It is alleged in the complaint that Dr Sunita Gupta, the then Sr. D.M.O., Northern Railways, Divisional Hospital, Charbagh, Lucknow was in possession of disproportionate assets to her known sources of income to the tune of Rs 1,80,96,585.33 during the period 01/01/2009 to 12/07/2016, which she can not satisfactorily account for. Dr Rajeev Gupta husband of Dr Sunita Gupta also abetted the possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income by Dr Sunita Gupta.

Per contra, Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the accused has not appeared in court on summons. The present application has been filed after the bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant. The sanction for prosecution has already been received and the charge sheet has been filed in court. Learned counsel for the CBI has further stated that the applicant is a radiotherapist and in the said field of radiotherapy, no private practice is ever seen. The said field is a specialized field and is undertaken in large Institutions and the set-up required for practising in radiotherapy goes to the tune of multi crores.

Click here to read the judgment

Judgment reviewed by  Sakshi Mishra

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat