Dismissed

Jitendra @ Juta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2021BAIL/11161/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the applicant was rejected bail due to the gravity of the charges and seriousness of the allegations. However, the court directed the trial court to conclude the pending trial within one year as per Section 309 Cr.P.C. to ensure speedy justice.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected at this stage; trial directed to be concluded within one year.

Jitendra @ Juta Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11161 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra @ Juta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,J.B. Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present first bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 933 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Sector-49, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that there is a delay of lodging the FIR, for which no plausible explanation has been given by the informant. It is next submitted that there is contradiction in the prosecution version and medical evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.10.2017 having no criminal history to his credit. The applicant has been named in the first information report.

¶8

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA states that the applicant named in the FIR and specific role for stabbing has been assigned to him, in which two persons have been brutally killed. The incident took place in broad day light, which was seen by the eye witnesses. It is next submitted that trial had already been started in which eight witnesses have already been examined, the said witnesses is fortified the applicant in the incident.

¶9

Moreover, looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.

¶10

Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected at this stage.

¶11

However, looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 18.12.2017, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case

¶12

pending before the concerned court below be concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶13

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶14

Office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the concerned court below for necessary compliance

¶15

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶16

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶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 :- 21.10.2021 Akbar

Jitendra @ Juta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra @ Juta 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

Nipendra and another Vs State of up

Rajneesh Kumar and Another Vs State of Up

Ajay Patel Vs State of U.P.

Chhanga @ Akbar Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Udhav Vs State of U. P. and Another