Dismissed

Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2020BAIL/10000/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant, charged with murder and other offenses involving a firearm injury, sought bail during trial. The court, noting strong prosecution evidence and proximity to trial conclusion, rejected the bail prayer. However, it directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months considering pandemic disruptions.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail rejected; trial directed to conclude within six months.

Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10000 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vipin Kumar Singh,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Hari Krishna Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Prakash Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 399 of 2015, under Sections 302, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Bhaluani, district-Deoria, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

The First Information Report was lodged by the complainant against two named and two unknown persons including applicant and the present accused was assigned the role of hitting the deceased with gunshot injuries. The incident was witnessed by the complainant himself and other persons. The complainant and other witness Brijesh Yadav have supported the prosecution case in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The complainant in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also nominated the present accused. The deceased received one gunshot injury on the head and the cause of death was shown due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of ante mortem firearm injury.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. He next submitted that the injury sustained by the applicant could not have been caused by the manner described in the first information report. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who has no reported criminal antecedents to his credit and is in jail since 8.10.2018, is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that three prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is about to conclude.

¶10

I have very carefully examined the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and the other material brought on record. The applicant

¶11

has been described as the author of the sole firearm injury received by the deceased. Prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution version.

¶12

After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, this application is rejected.

¶14

However considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the trial court is directed the conclude the trial of the applicant within a period of six months, after normal functioning of the Court as there is no normal functioning of the Court due to pandemic COVID-19, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶15

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court as early as possible.

¶16

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶17

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.11.2020 Faridul

Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Singh 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

Suman Vs State of U.P.

Naresh Pal Vs State of U.P.

Chhangur Vs State of U.P.

Manorav @ Saurabh Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Akram @ Guddu Vs State of U.P.