Abhinav Singh Alleged @ Dr Rajiv Gupta vs State Of U.P.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 1422 of 2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 336(4), 340(2) BNS, Police Station Kotwali Lalitpur, District Lalitpur during pendency of the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, sister of the applicant moved a complaint before CMO concerned with the allegation that by using degrees of her husband, applicant obtained job and thereafter FIR of the present case was lodged but entire allegation leveled against applicant is totally false.

5. He further submits, the name of applicant is Rajiv Gupta and from the data which has been uploaded on the cite of Medical Council of India which has been filed along with supplementary affidavit it is apparent that applicant did not commit any forgery. He further submits, it reflects, without verifying the allegation, directly FIR of the present case was lodged.

6. He further submits, even all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate.

7. He further submits, applicant is having criminal history of one another case of Prevention of Corruption Act in which after confession applicant has been convicted but merely on this ground it is not proper to withhold the bail application of the applicant.

8. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 12.12.2025 i.e. for last more than four months.

9. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. However, as per allegation, applicant by using the degrees of husband of his sister obtained job but applicant disputed this fact and according to him he used his own degree and in support, applicant has also filed data of the Medical Council of India.

12. Be that as it may, in view of this Court considering the allegation made against applicant it is not proper to detain the applicant further in the present matter.

13. Further, apart from the present case applicant is however having criminal history of one case of Prevention of Corruption Act and in that he has been convicted on the basis of his confessional statement but as all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and in the present matter applicant is in jail since 12.12.2025 i.e. for last more than four months, therefore, it is not proper to withhold his bail application only on this ground.

14. Further, law is settled that bail is a rule while bail rejection is an exception and unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive or preventive purpose.

15. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

16. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

17. Let the applicant - Abhinav Singh Alleged @ Dr Rajiv Gupta be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

18. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

19. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

(Sameer Jain,J.)

May 7, 2026

AK Pandey