Ritesh Kashyap @ Ajay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Heard Ms. Ambica Tripathi alongwith Ms. Pinki Kumari, Advocate, appearing for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 27.07.2025, while the informant was returning home from his office at about 10:00 p.m. on his Bullet motorcycle, and when he reached near Hanuman Mandir, Swagat Ghar, two motorcycle riders attempted to stop him. It is alleged that one Ritesh Kashyap @ Ajay, who was riding the second motorcycle, along with Ritesh Sharma @ Kaalu, chased the informant, and that Ritesh Sharma @ Kaalu fired at the informant, hitting him on the neck, as a result of which he fell down.

¶12

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the role of firing has been specifically assigned to co-accused Ritesh Sharma @ Kaalu and not to the present applicant. The applicant is alleged to be only a pillion rider. The applicant has duly explained his criminal history in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶13

It is further submitted that the co-accused Alimuddin @ Saka, who was also assigned the role of a pillion rider, has already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the bail application. The applicant, therefore, seeks parity with the bail order

¶14

BAIL No. 289 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

passed in favour of the said co-accused.

¶17

It has been further submitted that applicant is in jail since 02.12.2025 and, if facility of bail is granted, there is no apprehension that he will flee from the judicial process and he will abide by the orders passed by the Court below and will co-operate in speedy trial of the case.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that the role of causing fire arm injury has been assigned to the coaccused Ritesh Sharma @ Kaalu.

¶19

Perused the record.

¶20

A perusal of the record shows that injured remained at hospital since 27.07.2025 to 31.07.2025.

¶21

On due consideration of the facts that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 02.12.2025, has duly explained his criminal history, the role assigned to the applicant in the statement of the injured, and the bail order passed in favour of the co-accused, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. on the ground of parity.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶23

Let the applicant- Ritesh Kashyap @ Ajay, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 0274 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 109(1) BNS, Police Station-Mallawa, District-Hardoi, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

January 22, 2026 Vinay/-

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

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

Ritesh Kashyap @ Ajay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Kashyap @ Ajay v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. 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

Manoj Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ayush Anubhag-I, Lko. and 2 Others

Saroj Alias Saroj Kumari and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

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

Badshah Alam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Minhaz Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.