Allowed

Rakesh Kumar Kashyap @ Mohabi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2024/2261/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail appeal, setting aside the Special Judge's order rejecting bail for the appellant holding an identical role to a co-accused already granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against seeking adjournments, appearance at trial, recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and compliance with proclamation under S

Rakesh Kumar Kashyap @ Mohabi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14582

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2261 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Kashyap @ Mohabi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Sandeep Tewari,Rashmi Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 28.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Bail Application No. 3412 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 72 of 2023 U/s 302, 201, 34, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police StationMohanlalganj, District- Lucknow.

¶10

It is evident from the record that notice has already been served on the private respondent, but none appears on his behalf.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case merely on the basis of presumption, but there was no evidence against him. It is further submitted that co-accused person, namely, Anurag Singh @ Sachin Singh has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 2168 of 2023. It is further submitted that appellant is in jail since 09.02.2023, hence, he is entitled for bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of appellant, but he does not dispute on the fact that co-accused person, namely, Anurag Singh @ Sachin Singh has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 2168 of 2023.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, impugned order, bail order of co-accused person as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that co-accused

¶14

person, namely, Anurag Singh @ Sachin Singh, having identical role, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 2168 of 2023. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed . The impugned order dated 28.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow is hereby set aside .

¶16

Let the appellant- Rakesh Kumar Kashyap @ Mohabi involved in the aforementioned crime be releasedon bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their 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

(iii) In case, the appellant 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 appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.2.2024/Arpan

¶23

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

Rakesh Kumar Kashyap @ Mohabi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Kashyap @ Mohabi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

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

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

Mahanth Shashikant Das @ Golu Das Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sant Prasad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rashid Ali and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Ashutosh Shukla and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another