Allowed

Aryan Kashyap Alias Sibbu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2025CRLA/169/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against rejection of bail in a murder case involving knife injuries during a barat procession. The court found that no specific role or weapon was assigned to the appellant despite multiple accused persons, held the trial court's rejection suffered from infirmity, allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to conditions; impugned order rejecting bail set aside.

Aryan Kashyap Alias Sibbu vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22218

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 169 of 2025 Appellant :- Aryan Kashyap Alias Sibbu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- R S Dubey,Savita Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Aryan Kashyap Alias Sibbu with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur in Bail Application No.5864 of 2024.

¶7

On 13.7.2024 in the evening when the barat procession was moving some altercation took place between the informant side and accused side and during course of argument knife injury was caused to Rohit and Shobhit Choudhary. Abhishek Yadav @ Sadhu stabbed in the chest of Rohit and and Shivam Sharma stabbed in the chest and abdomen of Shobhit Choudhary. All other accused persons also participated in the commission of crime in furtherance of common intention of all. The injured were sent for medical examination but Rohit was declared dead by the doctor and injured Shobhit Choudhary was referred for BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that as many as 19 persons were made accused in this matter but however, no specific role except accused Abhishek Yadav and Shivam Sharma has been assigned to any of the accused persons including the present accused appellant. It is also submitted that no where in the statement of witnesses of fact or injured witness any specific weapon or role has been assigned to the present appellant. It is also submitted that the criminal history

¶9

of two cases has been explained in the affidavit. The trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 20.7.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 17.12.2024, however he could not dispute this factual aspect that no weapon or any role in the commission of crime has been assigned to the present accused appellant.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and also considering the fact that no role of assault has been assigned specifically to the present accused appellant and further no weapon has been assginged carried by him, incarceration period, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶13

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside .

¶14

Let the appellant Aryan Kashyap Alias Sibbu involved in Case Crime No. 201 of 2024 under Sections 103(2), 109(1), 191(2), 191(3), 3(5) of BNS & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District- Gorakhpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

¶17

witness.

¶18

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

(v) The appellant 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.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Fhd

¶23

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aryan Kashyap Alias Sibbu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aryan Kashyap Alias Sibbu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Punam Dubey vs State of U.P. and Another

Girish Upadhyay and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rijwana Bano vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Saini vs State of U.P. and Another

Daadu @ Chelaram vs State of Up

Jitendra Singh Patel vs State of U.P. and Another