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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30268

Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2903 of 2025 Applicant :- Akshay Kashyap Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Akil Imam,Mohd.Areeb Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. Rejoinder affidavit filed today on behalf of applicant is taken on record.

¶5

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0009 of 2025, under Sections 309(4), 61(2), 317(2) BNS registered at Police Station Kotwali Rudauli, District Ayodhya.

¶6

As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 06.01.2025 when two motorcycle borne persons allegedly looted 4.3 lakh rupees from the informant at the polytechnic crossing Lucknow when the informant was travelling for purchase of two tractors.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which could be evident from the fact that FIR has been lodged against unknown persons with incident being indicated of 06.01.2025 and alleged recovery taking place on 07.01.2025. It is submitted that there is no identification of the currency notes which were allegedly recovered from applicant. There is no registration number of any motor-cycle indicated in the FIR and therefore there is nothing in the recovery which would connect the applicant with the alleged loot. The applicant is under incarceration since 07.01.2025 without any previous criminal history.

¶8

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that recovery memo clearly indicates complicity of applicant in allegations levelled against him and charge-sheet has also been filed. It is however admitted that

¶9

applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶10

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶11

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶12

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶13

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that FIR has been lodged against unidentified persons who allegedly were riding a black bullet motor-cycle at the time of loot. The only aspect at this stage indicating complicity of applicant is the recovery memo dated 07.01.2025 in which a black bag allegedly recovered from the applicant has been identified. The aforesaid aspect would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. Applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 07.01.2025.

¶14

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the

¶15

applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let applicant, Akshay Kashyap involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/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.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant 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/her in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date : - 21.5.2025 Subodh/-

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dhiru @ Dhirendra and another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home, Lucknow

Mohd. Irshad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Deena Nath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shila Jeet Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko and Another

Sani Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Asif Naseem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.