Shivam Kashyap v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43215 of 2023 Applicant :- Shivam Kashyap Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Chandra Solanki,Varsha Soni Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kumar Tiwari, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶3The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 259 of 2022, under Sections 394, 411 IPC, Police Station Ekdil, District Etawah, during the pendency of trial.

¶4Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of applicant was disclosed by co-accused Kapil Yadav @ Gaiyaa in police custody. The said statement, in so far as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. Recovery of Rs.18,000/- has been shown from the applicant. The said money belongs to him. It is next contended that co-accused Kapil Yadav @ Gaiyaa has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28366 of 2023. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para-12 of the bail application and in para-4 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 25.04.2023 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶5Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶6Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the FIR. The name of applicant was disclosed by co-accused Kapil Yadav @ Gaiyaa in police custody. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than eight months and after submission of the charge-sheet 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶7Let applicant, Shivam Kashyap, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶8In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 23.11.2023 Prajapati High Court of Judicature at Allahabad