Allahabad High Court
ANKIT KASHYAPversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
Ankit Kashyap was arrested in connection with offences under IPC sections 105, 351(2), 351(3), 352 and the Arms Act and has been in jail since 21‑12‑2024. Only one of the fourteen charge‑sheet witnesses, the informant, has been examined and the informant altered his statement about the place of the incident during trial. The applicant filed a second bail application after a first one was dismissed, contending that he is not responsible for the delay in the trial and that the informant is not a reliable eye‑witness. The court observed that the applicant had no intention to cause injury, the informant’s inconsistency undermines the prosecution’s case, and the presumption of innocence requires bail unless the accused is a flight risk or likely to tamper with evidence. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, directing the applicant to furnish a personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a second application after an earlier denial, considering the delay in trial and limited witness examination.
- Whether the informant’s change of statement regarding the place of the incident affects the merit of the bail application.
- Whether the applicant’s criminal history and pending cases justify refusal of bail.
- Whether the applicant is responsible for the delay in the trial and thus a ground to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 2, 25, 3
- Indian Penal Code — s. 105, 351(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- presumption of innocence
- trial delay
- witness credibility
- IPC
- Arms Act
- second bail application
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30698 of 2025
Ankit Kashyap
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abrar Alam, Ajay Kumar Kashyap,
Amar Singh Kashyap, P.K. Singh,
Shamsher Singh, Sunil Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Kumar Kushwaha, Shad Khan,
G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Shamsher Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chandra
Prakash Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay Kumar
Kushwaha, learned counsel for informant and Sri Ashutosh Singh, learned
AGA for the State.
3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 338 of 2024, under Sections 105, 351(2), 351(3),
352 BNS and Section 3/25/2 Arms Act, Police Station Haldaur, District
Bijnor during pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, this is second bail
application filed on behalf of applicant and first bail application of the
applicant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.04.2025 which
has been annexed at page-15 of the paper-book but applicant is in jail in the
present matter since 21.12.2024 i.e. for last more than 15 months and till
date only one prosecution witness could be examined i.e. informant of the
case however in the charge-sheet there are total 14 witnesses, therefore,
there is no hope of early disposal of trial.
5. He further submits, applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 105
BNS along with other sections. He further submits, there is no evidence
which can suggests that applicant is causing delay in trial.
BAIL No. 30698 of 2025
2
6. He further submits, even from the statement of informant recorded before
the trial court it reflects, he has changed the place of incident. He further
submits, as per FIR and statement of informant recorded during investigation
it appears, incident occurred in front of the house of informant but during
trial he stated that incident occurred in front of house of Ishwar Chandra @
Monu and this fact suggests that actually informant is not an eye witness.
7. He further submits, admittedly applicant never intended to cause firearm
injury to the mother of the informant and as per allegation he opened fire
upon the mother of Ishwar Chandra @ Monu which unfortunately hit the
mother of the informant.
8. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant was
also made accused in four other cases but in one case after investigation final
report has been submitted and in another case applicant has already been
acquitted and proceedings of one case which relates to gambling Act has
been culminated and one another case is a complaint case.
9. He further submits, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant
should be enlarged on bail.
10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for informant
opposed the prayer for bail and submit, this is second bail application filed
on behalf of applicant and after considering the merit of the case his first bail
application was dismissed but they could not dispute the fact that during trial
informant of the case changed the place of incident. They also could not
dispute the other argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for
applicant.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
12. However, this is second bail application filed on behalf of applicant and
first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by this Court vide order
dated 07.04.2025 but it reflects, during trial informant of the case who was
also one of the eye witness changed the place of incident.
13. Further, even from the record it reflects, applicant was not having any
intention to cause injury to the deceased and it reflects, as per allegation
applicant opened fire upon the mother of Ishwar Chandra @ Monu which
accidentally hit the deceased.
BAIL No. 30698 of 2025
3
14. Further, applicant is facing trial for offence under Section 105 BNS
along with other sections and he is detained in jail since 21.12.2024 i.e. for
last more than 15 months and till date out of 14 witness of the charge-sheet
only one could be examined and it could not be reflected, applicant is
responsible for delay in trial. Considering the pace of trial there is no hope of
early disposal of trial.
15. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of four other cases but in one case after investigation final
report has been submitted and in another case applicant has already been
acquitted and one case which relates to Gambling Act proceeding has been
culminated and one another case is a complaint case.
16. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty an accused is deemed to
be innocent and bail application should not be dismissed either for punitive
or preventive purpose.
17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
19. Let the applicant - Ankit Kashyap be released on bail in the aforesaid
case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.
21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
BAIL No. 30698 of 2025
4
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
April 2, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…