Single Judge allowed bail application of Ramu Alias Jitendra accused under Sections 323, 324, 504, 308 IPC. Court held there was no material to indicate tampering with evidence and granted bail on personal bond with two sureties.
Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3441 of 2019
Applicant :- Ramu Alias Jitendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Virendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Dwivedi
Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.
Applicant- Ramu Alias Jitendra has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 303 of 2018, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 308 I.P.C., P.S.- Jagner, District- Agra.
I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order.
The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The further contention is that after 17 days of the date of incident, the father of the injured assigned specific role to applicant of causing head injury to injured by giving Pharsa blow, prior to this the informant has assigned general allegations to all co-accused persons. He next contended that there is exorbitant delay of 3 days in lodging the F.I.R. and the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that the injuries caused are not dangerous to life and the injured is hale and hearty as mentioned by him in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; that no incriminating article i.e. Pharsa or any thing of iron was not recovered from the possession of the accused- applicant; 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 01.12.2018 and in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. It has been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history.
Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant Ramu Alias Jitendra involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 24.4.2019 V.S.Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant accused of causing hurt and criminal intimidation in a private complaint.
Whether the delay in FIR and housing documentation establishes false implication warranting bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramu Alias Jitendra
State Of U.P.
Ghandikota Sri Devi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
