Allowed

Umesh Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2019BAIL/35341/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed by Umesh Kashyap, who is not named in the FIR and had no overt act attributed to him, granting release on bond and sureties with standard conditions to prevent witness intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with standard conditions.

Umesh Kashyap Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35341 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Umesh Kashyap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Padmaker

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Padmaker, counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 176 of 2017 (S.T. No. 167 of 2018), u/s 302/34 and 120B IPC, P.S. Pheelkhana, District Kanpur Nagar with the prayer for enlarging him on bail.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged against one Shivparvat and two other unknown accused. Subsequently, name of one unknown assailant was disclosed to be Dinesh, was came into light when the daughter of the deceased was interrogated by the I.O. and she has stated that accused Shivparvat and Dinesh, who had assaulted her father by knife and has stated that the applicant was merely standing nearby; no overt act has been attributed to the applicant; case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Shiv Parvat and Dinesh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that associates of the applicant are extending threats and in this behalf report has also been lodged against them and there is every possibility of tampering with the witnesses, therefore, certain conditions may be imposed. However, he could not dispute that any overt act has been assigned to the applicant.

¶9

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Umesh Kashyap involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the

¶11

satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

(iii)The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 7.11.2019 Dhirendra/

Umesh Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunder Vs State of U.P.

Irfan Vs State of U.P.

Shivani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Mohit Khajoori Vs State of U.P.

Tinkle Verma Vs State of U.P.

Bachchan Singh @ Sunil Vs State of U.P.