Allowed

Kamta Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2022/12616/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by Kamta Kashyap charged under Sections 307, 504, 506 and 34 IPC for assault and attempt to murder. The Court distinguished the applicant from the main accused who opened fire, noting injuries did not support the allegation of lathi attack against the applicant. Convincing counsel that the applicant is a law-abiding citizen with no criminal history, the Court granted bail on perso

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions regarding witness tampering and court appearance.

Kamta Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12616 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Kamta Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar,Sagar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Advocate has put in appearance and filed counter affidavit on behalf of the informant and same is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.220 of 2022, under Sections 307, 504, 506 and 34 I.P.C., P.S. Jethwara, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

As per the version of the F.I.R., the applicant including the other three co-accused persons assaulted the injured and one of them, namely, Arjun Kashyap opened fire over the injured on account of which he received serious injuries.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Main allegation of opening fire goes against coaccused Arjun Kashyap, who is named in the F.I.R. Even the injured person in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has asserted that the fire was opened by co-accused Arjun Kashyap. The role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of Arjun Kashyap who has been assigned the role of firearm. Allegation against the applicant is that with common intention, he along with other co-accused persons started beating the injured with lathi-danda but there is no such injury over the body of the injured person that can said to be caused by lathidanda. In support of his contention, he has drawn attention towards the injury report appended with the bail application. Thus, the presence of the applicant and allegation against him causing injury with lathi-danda is doubtful. The applicant has been named in the F.I.R. by the informant as there were enmity with the present applicant. There is no criminal history of the

¶10

applicant, which has been explained in para 11 of the bail application. The applicant is a law abiding citizen, who is languishing in jail since 22.8.2022. In case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has very vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. There are specific allegations against the applicant that he has beaten the injured and injured has received injuries. He has read the statement of the injured and indicated that injured himself has stated that the applicant has come with common intent to beat the injured and, as such, the role of the applicant is not lesser than the role of Arjun Kashyap. Prosecution story is intact, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has also vehemently opposed the submission and submitted that there are specific allegations against the applicant, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail. He has supported the version of the learned counsel for the informant.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it reveals from the contents of the F.I.R. that there are general allegations against the accused persons except one Arjun Kashyap who is said to have opened fire over the injured; nature of the injuries are also corroborative with the specific role of the co-accused Arjun Kashyap as those are with the firearm; there seems to be no injury over the body of the injured with hard and blunt object; the main allegation is against the co-accused Arjun Kashyap, who has been named in the F.I.R.; there is no criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 11 of the bail application; the applicant is a law abiding citizen; and the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.8.2022.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Kamta Kashyap involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the

¶16

satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶17

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶18

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶19

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶20

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

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.

¶22

It is clarified that the observations 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 merits of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.11.2022 KR

¶24

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by RABINDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.12.01 10:12:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kamta Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamta Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

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

Naushad Sheikh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Riyaj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.

Roshan Lal Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abhay Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.