Allowed

Nitish Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2021BAIL/19931/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 307 IPC, the High Court observed that prima facie there is satisfaction of charge but applied reformative theory and Article 21 to grant bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to verification of sureties and conditional compliance.

Nitish Kashyap Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19931 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Nitish Kashyap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Mrs. Swati Agrawal Srivastava,learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 30 of 2021, under Sections 307 I.P.C., P.S. Knowledge Park, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, is seeking enlargement on bail.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in this very case crime number. As per the FIR, the applicant was assigned the role for driving the vehicle and the person sitting inside the vehicle fired upon the police party. But nobody got injured in the alleged firing. The applicant has criminal history of one case in which the bail application is pending before Lucknow Bench of this Court. Applicant is languishing in jail since 22.1.2021 There is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence. Hence, bail, during trial, has been prayed for.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Let the applicant, Nitish Kashyap who is involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before

¶11

issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶13

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶14

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶17

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶19

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 23.9.2021 Sweety

Nitish Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitish 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chetan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra @ Gabbar Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Dayawati Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandrajeet Yadav @ Pattar @ Dhanpattar Vs State of U.P.

Chandrapal Singh Vs State of U.P.