Allowed

Jitendra @ Dada Ji v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2018BAIL/26352/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant, a school peon, in a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The court was satisfied that prima facie evidence for the charge lacked merit. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions including non-tampering with evidence and presence in court.

Jitendra @ Dada Ji Vs State of U.P. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26352 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra @ Dada Ji Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit has been filed by learned AGA on behalf of the State. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicant, both are taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashwini Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. Further submission is that applicant is aged about 50 years and is a peon in the school in question for the last 18 years without any complaint. It is highly improbable rather impossible for the applicant to commit the alleged offence in presence of Staff members of the school and children. Further submission is that there is no independent eye witness of the alleged offence. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 8.5.2018, has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶9

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Let applicant Jitendra @ Dada Ji, be released on bail in Case Crime No.136 of 2018, under Sections 354 A, 342, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Prem Nagar, District-Jhansi, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶14

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

Keeping in view the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 2004, trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.9.2018

¶18

ssm

Jitendra @ Dada Ji v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra @ Dada Ji v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Izharul Vs State of U.P.

Yusuf Vs State of U.P.

Prem Singh Vs State of U.P.

Hari Om and Another Vs State of U.P.

Punukdeo Yadav Vs State of U.P.