Allowed

Km Srishti Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2020ABAIL/2194/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant pending investigation under various sections of the IPC. The court noted the lack of prosecution evidence and extended earlier interim bail with conditions of personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending submission of police report, conditioned upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each.

Km Srishti Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2194 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Km Srishti Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Lihazur Rahman Khan,Abhishek Tandon,Irshad Ullah,Manu Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Abhishek Tandon and Sri Manu Srivastava, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Irshad Hussain, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶7

On 17.03.2020, the following interim order was passed by the co-ordinate Bench:

¶8

"Sri Manu Srivastava, learned Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant after obtaining no objection from earlier counsel.

¶9

Heard Sri Manu Srivastava , learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the amendment application and it is argued that the spelling of the name of the applicant has been wrongly written.

¶11

The amendment application is allowed.

¶12

Let correction be made in the array of parties during course of the day.

¶13

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 09 of 2020 of under sections 114, 120B, 147, 148, 149, 188, 332, 336, 353 of I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, Police Station Chowk, District Varanasi, during the pendency of the investigation.

¶14

Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent person who was involved in peaceful protest against CAA and it is wrong allegation that she has instigated the crowd and was involved in any illegal activity. She is also suffering from kidney ailment for last 16 years and there is only one kidney as the other kidney has been removed and she is also suffering from UTI and other infections. She has no criminal history as has been stated in paragraph no. 10 of the supplementary affidavit .She has apprehension of imminent arrest. If released on bail she would not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the investigation.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and has sought time to rebut the supplementary affidavit and has also brought to the notice of the Court that there is criminal history of two cases but has not disclosed the case crime no.

¶16

Looking to the fact that neither injury memo of any injured person has been annexed nor the crime numbers have been disclosed from the side of the prosecution, taking into consideration the gravity of accusation, and there being no possibility of her fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit.

¶18

List this case on 29.4.2020.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant Srishty Kashyap involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions.

¶20

1) that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶21

2) that 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;

¶22

3) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶23

4) that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant."

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the aforesaid order was extended on 09.09.2020 and in spite of the time granted, learned AGA has not filed any counter affidavit in the matter.

¶25

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but he could not point out any further incriminating material against the applicant.

¶26

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and her antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶27

In the event of arrest of the applicant Km Srishti Kashyap involved in Case Crime No. 09 of 2020 of under sections 114, 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 188, 332, 336, 353 of I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932, Police Station Chowk, District Varanasi, she shall be released on bail till the submission of police report if any under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions.

¶28

(i) the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;

¶29

(ii) 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 office;

¶30

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶31

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶32

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶33

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶34

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶35

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶36

Order Date :- 24.9.2020

¶37

Madhurima

Km Srishti Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km Srishti Kashyap v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Shanaz Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Durgawati Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kamla Pathak Vs State of U.P.

Mukul Dev Vs State of U.P.

Atish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.