Allowed¶14

Monu Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 May 2026BAIL/14532/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.), decision dated May 7, 2026; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14532 of 2026, Monu Kashyap v. State of U.P.; bail granted under Section 483 BNSS 2023 in Case Crime No. 103 of 2026, Sections 305-A, 331(4), 317(2), 3(5) BNS read with Section 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Khekada, District Baghpat; applicant in custody since 03.04.2026; criminal history of three cases explained; recovery of stolen articles, one knife, one screw driver and four saw bled from applicant and two co-accused; personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; bail conditions including presence under Section 351 BNSS; no expression on merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Monu Kashyap on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.

Monu Kashyap Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to applicant Monu Kashyap on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Monu Kashyap should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 103 of 2026 (Sections 305-A, 331(4), 317(2), 3(5) BNS and Section 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Khekada, District Baghpat) during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Court's answer

Considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from the record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found the case fit for bail and allowed the bail application.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Applicant Monu Kashyap to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no inducement, threat, promise or tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; personal presence before the trial court on dates fixed for opening of case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S.; no adjournment seeking on evidence dates when witnesses are present); breach of conditions to be ground for cancellation of bail.

¶15

Key takeaways

Clarified that anything said in the order is limited to determination of the bail application, is not an expression on the merits, and the trial court remains absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the evidence.obiter¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 allowed. Applicant Monu Kashyap, accused in Case Crime No. 103 of 2026 under Sections 305-A, 331(4), 317(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 4/25 Arms Act at Police Station Khekada, District Baghpat, in custody since 03.04.2026 with a stated criminal history of three cases said to have been explained, was ordered released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence or pressurising prosecution witnesses and requiring presence before the trial court on fixed dates, including for framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S. The Court clarified that nothing in the order is an expression on the merits and the trial court remains free to reach independent conclusions.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14532 of 2026

¶3

Monu Kashyap

¶4

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mohd. Afzal Ansari, Mohd. Khalil
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 69

¶6

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Mohd. Afzal Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Ashish Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.103 of 2026, under Sections 305-A, 331(4), 317(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 4/25 Arms Act, registered at Police Station Khekada, District Baghpat, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that some stolen articles, one knife, one screw driver and four saw bled are said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant and two other co-accused persons. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.04.2026 and the applicant is having criminal history of three cases, which has been duly explained, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶11

BAIL No. 14532 of 2026

¶12

¶13

As per first information report, some stolen articles, one knife, one screw driver and four saw bled are said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant and two other co-accused persons. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.04.2026 and the applicant is having criminal history of three cases, which has been duly explained.

¶14

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Monu Kashyap involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned :-

¶16

(i) 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.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶18

(iii) 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 351 of B.N.S.S.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶20

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

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

BAIL No. 14532 of 2026

¶23

¶24

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶25

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶26

May 7, 2026 RKM

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Monu Kashyap v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu Kashyap v. State of U.P.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akram Vs State of U.P.

Akhil Pal Alias Atul Alias Sikandar Vs State of U.P.

Rohit @ Futta Kanjhan Vs State of U.P.

Nitin Yadav @ Kaluwa Vs State of U.P.

Sushma vs State of U.P.

Rahul Kori @ Musa @ Rajesh vs State of U.P.