Allowed

Kashish Malhotra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC17 May 2023/172/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of the accused in a murder case. The court accepted a Forensic Science Laboratory report casting doubt on the authenticity of the CCTV footage used to justify previous bail rejection and granted bail noting the informant was not an eye witness.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a bail bond and two sureties each in the required amount, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence, not to pressurize witnesses, and to appear

Kashish Malhotra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34337

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 172 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kashish Malhotra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Devi Prasad Kumar,Aviral Chandra,Shraddha Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Rakesh D. Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sri Niwas Bajpai, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This second bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 0024/2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B & Section 34 I.P.C, Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶9

First bail application No. 3566 of 2021 was rejected by means an order dated 23.03.2021 passed by this Court.

¶10

4.The aforesaid case arises out of an F.I.R lodged against five named accused persons, including the applicant, alleging that all the named accused persons killed the informant's younger brother by assaulting him with sharp edged weapon. The informant is not an eye witness of the incident. The first bail application was rejected after recording that the applicant was seen in the CCTV footage of the incident.

¶11

The CCTV footage was not made a part of the case diary and, therefore, after rejection of the first bail application, the applicant filed an application before the trial court on 12.05.2022 for being provided a copy of the CCTV footage. On

¶12

the aforesaid application, the trial court called for report and on 21.05.2022, the Forensic Science Laboratory U.P. Mahanagar, Lucknow has submitted a report stating that three digital video files sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory contain ghost image of another video in main video with vertical lines/bands and those are likely not to be the original video.

¶13

The learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history in para 52 and 53 of the affidavit in support of the bail application. He is involved in two other cases, (i) Case No. 145 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 352, 506 I.P.C, P.S Krishna Nagar in which the applicant has already been granted bail, and (ii) Case Crime No. 202/2020, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act, which has been lodged after lodging of the present case.

¶14

The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail application and Sri Sri Niwas Bajpai has submitted that from the call detail records of the mobile phone of one of the accused persons, it has been found that one of the Vinayak Thakur (coaccused) talked to the applicant.

¶15

The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that one of the co-accused persons Vinayak Thakur alias Vinayak Bacchan Singh has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 25.04.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 107 of 2023.

¶16

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the informant is not an eye witness of the incident and the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on the ground that the applicant's involvement is recorded in the CCTV footage whereas as per the Forensic Science Laboratory report, the video available contains ghost image of another video and it is not likely to be

¶17

original video and that even as per the call detail records, there was no conversation of the deceased with the applicant and that one of the co-accused has already been granted bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.01.2020, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant Kashish Malhotra be released on bail in Case Crime No. 0024/2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B & Section 34 I.P.C, Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow on furnishing a bail bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence;

¶21

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶23

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 17.5.2023 Preeti.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kashish Malhotra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashish Malhotra v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, 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

Ajay Pal @ Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Lko.

Saurabh Singh @ Monu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Mannu @ Ayan Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mustaq Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Dayaram Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.