Allowed

Jeetu @ Jitendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2018BAIL/531/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to applicant charged with robbery and looting under IPC Sections 394 and 411, directing personal bond with sureties and conditions against tampering or illegal activities, though without expressing an opinion on merits of false implication or criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of court.

Jeetu @ Jitendra Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 531 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Jeetu @ Jitendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Dixit,Anupam Shyam Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Purshottam Maurya, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶7

It is alleged that three unknown persons having covered their fades committed robbery and looted Rs.22,290/- alongwith a gold ring and purse of the complainant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and he has committed no offence.It is next contended that the report was lodged against three unknown persons and the applicant is not named therein. The applicant has been arrested from his house and false recovery of Rs.5,000/- has been shown against the applicant and there is no evidence of the alleged recovery. The allegation against the applicant are general in nature and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is pointed out that the applicant has criminal history which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.9.2017.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in

¶11

this case.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Jeetu @ Jitendra involved in Case Crime No.366 of 2017, under Sections 394, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Tappal, District Aligarh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶14

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶15

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶16

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 20.3.2018 IA

Jeetu @ Jitendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeetu @ Jitendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramayan Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Damyanti Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Lalta Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Satish Kori Vs State of U.P.

Rajan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.