Satish Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the alleged recovery of several articles including jewellery along with Rs. 2300/- cash is doubtful and fabricated, inasmuch as no independent witness was associated with the alleged recovery proceedings. It is further submitted that the applicant has duly explained the criminal antecedents relating to eight other cases in paragraph 22 of the bail application. The name of the applicant is stated to have surfaced only in the confessional statement of a co-accused.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the co-accused, namely Nadeem and Yusuf Ansari, who were attributed similar roles, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 15.12.2025 and 05.01.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 11932 of 2025 and 12903 of 2025, respectively. Accordingly, learned counsel seeks grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of parity with the co-accused.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.08.2025. 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.

¶13

BAIL No. 13010 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that it is a case of parity.

¶16

In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, the nature of the allegations, the facts that the alleged recovery is stated to have been made without associating any independent witness, the applicant’s name has surfaced only in the confessional statement of a co-accused, the explanation furnished regarding his criminal antecedents, and further considering that the co-accused, namely Nadeem and Yusuf Ansari, who were assigned similar roles, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant Satish Kashyap, involved in Crime No. 306/2025, U/s 305 BNS (380 IPC), 331(4) BNS (457 IPC), 317(2) BNS (411 IPC), 61(2)(A) BNS (120-B IPC), PS-Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶20

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶21

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶22

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶23

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.

¶24

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶25

January 6, 2026 R.C.

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish 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

Similar cases

Shiv Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Cooperative) Lko. and 2 Others

Sobran vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohar Singh Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Babu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Tech. Edu. Lko. and 6 Others

Sonam Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Child Development and Nutrition Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Dr. Priyanka Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Ayush Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others