Allowed

Harendra Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2019BAIL/10025/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal bail application was allowed. The applicant, accused under sections 143, 147, 148, and 302 IPC along with other provisions, argued that co-accused were granted bail and his role was indistinguishable. The court, noting he has no criminal history and no eye witness against him, granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions regarding evidence tampering and future offences.

Harendra Kashyap Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10025 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Harendra Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against 32 named persons, including the applicant and 100 to 150 unknown persons alleging that on 29.12.2018, they started demonstration at Gazipur near bridge of Chakasrasan Shiv Mandir and assaulted at Police personnel in which Constable Surendra Pratap Singh had received three injuries and died.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that coaccused namely Om Prakash Chaudhary and Anil Bind have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 1.3.2019 and 7.3.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 9047 of 2019 and 9814 of 2019, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R. The name of the applicant was surfaced later on after thought and with due legal consultation. There is general allegations against all accused persons. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.12.2018 (more than two months) having no criminal history. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no independent witness against the applicant. There is no eye witness against the applicant and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Harendra Kashyap involved in Case Crime No. 183 of 2018, under Section 143, 147, 148, 323,

¶11

341, 336, 427, 504, 506, 302, 332 IPC and 3/4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station-Nonhara, District-Ghazipur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶16

5.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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.3.2019 A. Singh

Harendra Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Prem Narain Lodhi Vs State of U.P.

Parveen Vs State of U.P.

Ramapati Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Vs State of U.P.