Allowed

Chaman Kashyap Thru. Guardian His Father Sri Govind Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2025ABAIL/2095/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant facing arrest under Sections 304, 34 IPC for a fatal car accident sought anticipatory bail claiming he was a minor passenger falsely implicated. Interim protection granted by coordinate bench was made absolute on account of cooperation in investigation.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection made absolute; anticipatory bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two sureties.

Chaman Kashyap Thru. Guardian His Father Sri Govind… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2095 of 2024

¶3

Chaman Kashyap Thru. Guardian His Father Sri Govind Prasad

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Desh Raj Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 12

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants apprehending their arrest in Case Crime No.0053 of 2024 under Section 304, 34 IPC, Police Station Kurebhar, District Sultanpur.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2024 while granting interim protection to the applicant has passed the following order:-

¶12

"The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No.0053 of 2024 under Section 304, 34 IPC, Police Station Kurebhar, District Sultanpur.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶14

Issue notice to respondent no.2.

¶15

Steps be taken within one week.

¶16

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 28.3.2024 at about 11.00 p.m. the driver of the car no.UP32AV4295 while driving rashly and negligently hit the brother of the informant from behind due to which he died.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is minor. On

¶18

ABAIL No. 2095 of 2024

¶19

¶20

the date of incident also he was minor. His date of birth as per the marksheet is 1.1.2010. He was sitting in the car. He has no complicity in the incident. It is submitted that co-accused was driving the car. The applicant has been falsely implicated.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶22

Learned Addl. Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that in support of the prosecution case the statement of the three witnesses from toll plaza has been taken under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who has supported the prosecution story, however, he could not dispute the mark-sheet filed by the applicant. He prays for two weeks' time to file Counter Affidavit.

¶23

Perused the record.

¶24

On due consideration to the age of the applicant prima facie it appears that he may have been falsely implicated as also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant.

¶25

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶26

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicant shall report to the concerned police station/investigating officer within twenty days from today and will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶27

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.

¶28

List on 3.10.2024.

¶29

In the meantime, learned A.G.A. shall file objections/counter affidavit. "

¶30

ABAIL No. 2095 of 2024

¶31

¶32

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation in the F.I.R. are baseless and applicant has been falsely implicated. The investigating officer has filed the charge sheet without collecting the cogent and tangible evidence. He submits that in compliance of the order dated 11.09.2024, applicant has filed the bail bonds and has been released on interim anticipatory bail by the learned trial court. Applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial. Applicant has not misused the liberty of interim protection granted by this Court.

¶33

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶34

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that the applicant has cooperated in the investigation and he shall cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶35

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.

¶37

September 4, 2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶38

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶39

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

Chaman Kashyap Thru. Guardian His Father Sri Govind Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaman Kashyap Thru. Guardian His Father Sri Govind Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rekha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ram Murat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Bhagwandeen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Pankaj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

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