Allowed

Sanjay Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Jan 2019BAIL/4590/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant Sanjay Kashyap involved in theft under the Indian Electricity Act and IPC. The applicant contended false implication by a co-accused, and the court, without commenting on merits, ordered his release on bailable bond with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant held involved in Case Crime No.677 of 2018 on personal bond and two sureties with conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4590 of 2019 Applicant :- Sanjay Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶4

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

¶5

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no specific role has been assigned against the applicant. No stolen article has been recovered from him. After the arrest of the co-accused Naushad, his confessional statement was recorded on 5.12.2018 u/s 161 Cr.P.C, in which, he allegedly took the name of the applicant. It is further contended that he has falsely been implicated in this case and is languishing in jail since 20.12.2018. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the same.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but concedes the factual aspects of the matter.

¶7

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon the merits of the case, in my opinion, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶8

Let applicant Sanjay Kashyap involved in Case Crime No.677 of 2018, under Sections 136 & 137 of Indian Electricity Act and 379 of IPC, Police Station Mawana, District Meerut, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and on furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶9

1.The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidences.

¶10

The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶11

3.The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically be cancelled.

¶15

Order Date :- 31.1.2019 m.a.

Sanjay Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay 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

Hari Om Vs State

Deo Nath Vs State of U.P.

Somaru Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Jag Roshan Lal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Imamuddin Vs State of U.P.