Allahabad High Court
AMIT KASHYAPversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Amit Kashyap, who was arrested in connection with a fraud case (Criminal No. 480 of 2024) involving alleged fake bank accounts and misappropriation of loan amounts under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The applicant, a recovery agent, argued that the allegations were false and that co‑accused bank officials had already been released on bail, making his case comparatively weaker. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions raised by the applicant. The Court noted that the applicant’s role was limited to recovery, that the co‑accused had been granted bail, and that his prior criminal history had been explained, finding no substantive reason to deny bail. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying criminal case.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite being charged under serious IPC offences and having prior criminal cases.
- Whether the bail granted to co‑accused influences the applicant's eligibility for bail.
- Whether the applicant's alleged role as a recovery agent justifies bail notwithstanding the allegations of fraud.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- fraud
- loan fraud
- IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B
- recovery agent
- prior criminal history
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42268 of 2025
Amit Kashyap
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aftab Khan, Mohd Imran Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Mohd Imran Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya,
learned AGA for the State-respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in
Case Crime No. 480 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police
Station Kotwali, District Mathura, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per allegation applicant was
recovery agent of the bank and he, bank manager and land officer by way of fake
accounts disbursed the loan in the name of informant and subsequently
misappropriated the loan amount but entire allegations made against the applicant are
totally false.
4. He further submitted that Rohitdas, Bank Manager and Surendra Singh, loan officer
have already been released on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and their bail
orders have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application and as far as
allegations are concerned case of applicant is on better footing than them as applicant
is only recovery agent.
5. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of three other cases but on the basis of same allegations in these cases
also applicant has been made accused alongwith bank manager and loan officer and
his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and in the
present matter, applicant is in jail since 3.11.2025.
6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the
arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
8. However, as per allegation applicant and others duped the bank by opening fake
bank account but it reflects alongwith the applicant co-accused Rohitdas, Bank
BAIL No. 42268 of 2025
2
Manager and Sundar Singh Loan Officer were also made accused and they have been
released on bail and applicant is only recovery agent of bank and therefore, this Court
finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that case of
applicant is on better footing than the co-accused who have already been released on
bail.
9. Further, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but his criminal
history has been explained in the instant bail application and in the present matter
applicant is in jail since 3.11.2025.
10. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in
my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
11. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant
bail application is allowed.
12. Let the applicant-Amit 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.
13. 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.
14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts 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 23, 2026
Ankita
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANKITA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…