Radheshyam Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the informant received information that on 22.03.2024, his brother, Bankey Gupta, was called by the applicant and the co-accused who allegedly killed him and concealed his body. Subsequently, on 25.03.2024, the informant lodged a missing person report at Police Station Hariyaion regarding his brother’s disappearance.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and his case stands on a different footing from that of co-accused Madan Gupta. Except for the alleged recovery of a danda and the dead body, purportedly made on the joint pointing out of the applicant and the co-accused from an open field, there is no other incriminating material against the applicant. It is further submitted that the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, and the chain of circumstances is incomplete.

¶13

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer, contending that the cause of death, as per the post-mortem report, is asphyxia resulting from antemortem strangulation, and the applicant has committed the offence.

¶15

BAIL No. 10565 of 2024

¶16

2

¶17

Considering the post-mortem report, the filing of charge sheet, the nature of the alleged recovery, the case is based on circumstantial evidence; coupled with the fact that the applicant is in custody since 08.04.2024, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant Radheshyam Kashyap involved in Case Crime No. 89/2024, U/S-302,201,120-B I.P.C., P.S- Hariyanwan District- Hardoi, be released on 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(iv) 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. 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.

¶24

(v) The applicant 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 in accordance with law.

¶25

(vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶26

BAIL No. 10565 of 2024

¶27

3

¶28

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶29

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶30

October 6, 2025

¶31

R.C.

¶32

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Neeraj Yadav Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Suman @ Siya Rani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Guddu @ Ayodhya Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Satish Kumar @ Satish Rawat @ Satish Rao vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ram Teerath Nishad vs State of U.P. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.