Disposed¶12

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

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2025BAIL/8183/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application granted; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Saurabh Lavania, J.; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8183 of 2025; Sanjay Kashyap v. State of U.P.; Case Crime No. 208/2025; Sections 103(1)/238(a)/3(5) BNS; Police Station Banthara, District Lucknow; parity with co-accused Manju Devi (bail order dated 07.11.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7146 of 2025); custody since 11.07.2025; no criminal history; personal bond and two sureties including family member; bail conditions including Section 313 Cr.P.C. attendance; disposed December 1, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted: applicant Sanjay Kashyap to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 208/2025 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties (one a family member), subject to imposed conditions (i)-(viii); application disposed of. ¶12

Sanjay Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Sanjay Kashyap, charged under Sections 103(1)/238(a)/3(5) BNS in Case Crime No. 208/2025 (Police Station Banthara, District Lucknow), is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶3

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the period of incarceration, the fact that the co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court, and the chance of conclusion of trial in the near future, and expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Judge found it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Sanjay Kashyap was directed to be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties (one to be a family member of the applicant), subject to eight imposed conditions including cooperation with prosecution, non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses, attendance before the trial court on each fixed date including dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and refraining from seeking adjournments when witnesses are present; in case of default, the trial court may treat it as abuse of liberty of bail.

¶9

Key takeaways

Clarification stated in passing: since the order relates only to enlargement on bail, the observation(s) made in the order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by them.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH) — BAIL GRANTED (Single Judge: Saurabh Lavania, J.; decided December 1, 2025). Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8183 of 2025 (Sanjay Kashyap v. State of U.P.) disposed of by enlarging the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 208/2025 under Sections 103(1)/238(a)/3(5) BNS, Police Station Banthara, District Lucknow. Grounds weighed: parity with co-accused Smt. Manju Devi, already enlarged on bail by this Court on 07.11.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7146 of 2025; the nature of allegations; period of incarceration (applicant in judicial custody since 11.07.2025 with no criminal history); and bleak prospect of early conclusion of trial — expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits. Release ordered on personal bond plus two reliable sureties, one to be a family member, subject to conditions including cooperation with prosecution, no tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses, attendance on all fixed dates including recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and no adjournment-seeking when witnesses are present; default may be treated as abuse of liberty of bail. Court clarified that its observations carry no bearing on trial merits.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8183 of 2025

Sanjay Kashyap

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	Surya Narayan Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	G.A.
Court No.- 13

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶10

On a query being put, learned AGA submitted that he has complete instructions in the matter, as such, this Court proceeded to hear the application seeking bail on merits.

¶11

Heard Ms. Puja Sharma, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Surya Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶12

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 208/2025, under Sections 103(1)/238(a)/3(5) BNS, Police StationBanthara, District-Lucknow.

¶13

The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely been implicated in the case.

¶14

It is also stated that co-accused namely Smt. Manju Devi has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7146 of 2025. The relevant portion of the order dated 07.11.2025 reads as under:-

¶15

"3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that FIR in question was lodged by the applicant alleging that the husband of the informant/applicant was missing and the body was found in a pond. Subsequently, based on the investigation and the statement of the daughter of the applicant wherein she stated that the applicant used to meet the coaccused coupled with the call detail report, the informant had met with co-accused. It is also argued that the confessional statement of the applicant was also recorded after which the other evidences were collected.

¶16

4. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶17

5. Considering the postmortem report indicating anti-mortem injuries, including a head injury, and the evidences linking the applicant to the offence are prima facie weak, coupled with the fact that the applicant is in custody since 04.06.2025 and has no criminal antecedent, and charge-sheet has been filed as also there is nothing on record to establish that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, there will be a threat to the trial, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶18

6. Let the applicant- Smt. Manju Devi be released on bail in aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of Rs.

¶19

BAIL No. 8183 of 2025

¶20

¶21

20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each of the like amount with the following conditions: "

¶22

It is further stated that the applicant, having no criminal history, is in judicial custody since 11.07.2025. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty of bail and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak. In these circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the above contentions made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including which are related to allegations made in the FIR and keeping in mind the period of incarceration as also that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court as also chance of conclusion of trial in near future and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶25

Let the applicant- Sanjay Kashyap, be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties, out of which one shall be the family member of the accused-applicant, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶26

(i) The applicant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶27

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶29

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence.

¶30

(v) 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.

¶31

(vi) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶32

(vii) The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶33

(viii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶34

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶35

BAIL No. 8183 of 2025

¶36

¶37

As this order relates to enlargement of the applicant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶38

Application is disposed of.

¶39

December 1, 2025 Jyoti/-

¶40

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶41

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay 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