Amit Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 684 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura, during the pendency of the trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the subject case. Learned counsel submits that applicant has not committed the alleged crime and the name of the applicant has been dragged in the subject case merely for the reason that he has helped the informant to get benefit of Pradhan Mantri Employment Generation Scheme against a petty amount, otherwise he has no concerned at all. It is next submitted that only vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Prior to the present case, the applicant have criminal history, wherein he has already been granted bail by the court concerned vide order dated 9.2.2026 in Case No. 793 of 2023 and vide order dated 26.2.2026 in Bail Application No. 669 of 2026, arising out of Case Crime No. 63 of 2023 and vide order dated 23.04.2026 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42268 of

¶12

BAIL No. 44130 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

2025 (Amit Kashyap vs. State of U.P.). The applicant is in jail since 30.11.2025. Further submission is that similarly placed co-accused of the applicant have already granted bail vide order(s) dated 18.09.2025 and 31.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 24143 of 23025 (Surendra Singh vs. State of U.P). and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25815 of 2025 (Anil Gola vs. State of U.P.), respectively. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse liberty of bail and is ready to co-operate in the trial.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is no illegality in the bail rejection order, but does not dispute the fact that similarly placed co-accused of the applicant have already granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶16

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. At this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Co-accused of the applicant have already granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for approximately five months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Bail Application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant-Amit Kashyap , involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶18