Allowed

Sarvesh Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2023/3874/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to an applicant accused of murder and related offences under sections 304, 201, and 34 of the IPC. The court held that allegations were based solely on suspicion, the prosecution relied on a single confessional statement and recovered items, and the applicant had no criminal history, justifying bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Sarvesh Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3874 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sarvesh Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ahmad Abbas Zaidi,Sultan Hasan Ibrahim

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Sultan Hasan Ibrahim, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Manish Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.342 of 2022, under Sections 304, 201, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Dahi, District Unnao.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 21.10.2022 against the accused applicant and one Sandip Kashyap alleging that on 05.10.2022 the informant's husband left his home to go to Nasik in connection with his job but thereafter he could not be contacted through phone. On 09.10.2022 a missing report was lodged in the Police Station Shafipur. Subsequently, the dead body of the informant's husband was recovered from river Lon. In the CCTV footage of railway station Unnao the deceased was seen in the cue for cancelling reserved ticket along with the accused persons. The first information report alleges that the deceased had borrowed Rs.40,000/- from the co-accused person and he was not repaying the amount. Although the first information report further alleges that the accused person pushed the deceased in the river Lon, it appears that the aforesaid allegation has been levelled solely on the basis of suspicion and there is absolutely

¶9

no material to support the allegation.

¶10

The police claims that in the custodial statement the applicant confessed his involvement in commission of the offence and that a bag and a hammer were recovered at his pointing out. As per recovery memo there was absolutely no other thing kept in the bag.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case, he has no criminal history.

¶12

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the allegations have been levelled in the first information report solely on the basis of suspicion and so far as the liability of the deceased for repayment of amount is concerned that was also not against the present applicant; that besides the allegation levelled in the first information report on the basis of suspicion, the sole material relied upon by the prosecution is custodial confessional statement and the alleged recovery of a bag and a hammer only; that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 24.10.2022 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant-Sarvesh Kashyap be released on bail in Case Crime No.342 of 2022, under Sections 304, 201, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Dahi, District Unnao on furnishing a

¶16

personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶19

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶20

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

¶21

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 21.3.2023 Ram.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sarvesh Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Jamuna Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Lavkush Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shatrughan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Deepak Sonkar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Aftab Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Nilesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.