Dismissed¶¶24

Ankit Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2025BAIL/11219/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected; Ankit Kashyap; Case Crime No. 338 of 2024; Police Station Haldaur; District Bijnor; Sections 105, 351(2), 351(3), 352 BNS; Section 3/25/27 Arms Act; Section 102 BNS versus Section 105 BNS (offence classification observation); firing at Dayawati @ Farro; death of informant's mother; eye-witnesses supported FIR; Section 173(4) BNSS application dismissed; criminal history of four other cases; in custody since 21.12.2024; order dated 7.4.2025; Sameer Jain, J.; Allahabad High Court.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts and circumstances, including eye-witness support for the FIR version, criminal history of four other cases and custody since 21.12.2024, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail and the bail application is rejected at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

Ankit Kashyap vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Ankit Kashyap is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 338 of 2024 (Sections 105, 351(2), 351(3), 352 BNS and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Haldaur, District Bijnor) during pendency of trial. +1 more

¶¶9

Court's answer

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

At this stage, on the basis of the defence taken by the applicant in his dismissed application under Section 173(4) BNSS, the statements of the eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

On the facts of the case, the Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant that the applicant ought to be challaned for the offence under Section 102 BNS rather than Section 105 BNS.obiter¶¶18
The observations made in the order are limited to the facts brought by the parties for disposal of the bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.obiter¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sameer Jain, J.) rejected the bail application of Ankit Kashyap in Case Crime No. 338 of 2024 (Sections 105, 351(2), 351(3), 352 BNS read with Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Haldaur, District Bijnor). According to the FIR, the applicant opened fire upon Dayawati @ Farro but the fire hit the informant's mother, who sustained injuries and died. The Court found merit in the submission of the learned AGA and counsel for the informant that, the applicant having fired upon Dayawati @ Farro, he ought to be challaned for the offence under Section 102 BNS rather than Section 105 BNS. Several eye-witnesses supported the FIR version; the applicant's earlier application under Section 173(4) BNSS against the informant and others had already been dismissed, and on that defence the eye-witness statements could not be disbelieved at that stage. The applicant also had criminal history of four other cases and was in jail in the present matter since 21.12.2024. Bail was accordingly rejected without expressing any opinion on merits, the observations being confined to the bail disposal and having no bearing on the trial.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49606

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11219 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ankit Kashyap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar,Raghvendra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Two supplementary affidavits filed by applicant are taken on record.

¶7

Sri Tarun Jha, learned Advocate filed his power on behalf of informant, which is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Tarun Jha, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 338 of 2024, under Sections 105, 351(2), 351(3), 352 BNS and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station- Haldaur, District- Bijnor, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶10

FIR of the present case was lodged against applicant and according to FIR, applicant opened fire upon Dayawati @ Farro but fire opened by him hit the mother of the informant due to which, she sustained injuries and died.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter and actually informant twisted the real incident and actually dispute arose between applicant and Ishwar Chand and during scuffling suddenly Ishwar Chand opened fire due to which, mother of the informant died but subsequently on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

¶12

He further submitted that with regard to incident, from the side of applicant an application was also moved under Section 173(4) BNSS, which has been annexed at page no. 115 of the paper book

¶13

although, the same was rejected. He further submitted that considering the defence taken by applicant in his application U/s 173(4) BNSS, applicant should be enlarged on bail.

¶14

He further submitted that apart from the present case, however, applicant is having criminal history of four other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and he is in jail in the present matter since 21.12.2024.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific allegation against the applicant that he opened fire due to which, mother of the informant died, however, he did not intent to cause her heath and he opened fire upon Dawayati @ Farro but in spite of that there was no occasion to challan the applicant for the offence under Section 105 BNS rather he should be challaned for the offence under Section 102 BNS.

¶16

They further submitted that there are several eye-witnesses, who supported the version of the FIR and, therefore, applicant should not be released on bail.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶18

As per allegation made in the FIR, applicant during dispute opened fire upon Dawayati @ Farro but unfortunately mother of the informant sustained fire-arm injury and died. However, applicant has been challaned in the present matter for the offence under Section 105 BNS but considering the facts of the case, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant that he ought to be challaned for the offence under Section 102 BNS.

¶19

Further, there are number of eye-witnesses, who supported the version of FIR.

¶20

Further, however, it appears from the side of applicant an application U/s 173(4) BNSS was also moved against the informant and others but the same has already been dismissed. Further, even in view of this Court, on the basis of defence taken by applicant in his application U/s 173(4) BNSS, at this stage, the statements of eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved.

¶21

Further, apart from the present case, applicant is also having criminal history of four other cases and he is in jail in the present

¶22

matter only since 21.12.2024.

¶23

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected at this stage.

¶25

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶26

Order Date :- 7.4.2025 KK Patel

¶27

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ankit Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shakib Alias Sakib vs State of U.P.

Hausala Devi vs State of U.P.

Yashpal vs State of U.P.

Hariom vs State of U.P.

Shivam Kumar vs State of U.P.

Jogindar Nishad vs State of U.P. and Another