Allowed

Jitendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2021BAIL/15116/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application in a case involving offences under Sections 323, 324, 326 I.P.C. The applicant was found falsely implicated with simple injuries caused, arguing for parity with co-accused already granted bail. Bail was approved with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding evidence and witness interference.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15116 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh,Manish Kumar Pandey,Rohit Shukla, Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant Shri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

A first information report was lodged as Case Crime No. 27 of 2021 at Police Station-Saidangali, DistrictAmroha under Sections 323, 324, 326 I.P.C.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Amroha, on 22.02.2021

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 20.01.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Shri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. No specific role in the assault has been assigned to the applicant. No grievous or life threatening injury on any vital part of the body of the injured was caused in the alleged incident. The injuries are simple in nature. Learned counsel for the

¶10

applicant claims congruency in role with co-accused person and seeks parity in relief with the said coaccused namely Ajay and Raju, who have been granted bail by the trial court on 05.02.2021 in Bail Application No.159 of 20021 (Ajay and another Vs. State of U.P.). Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶11

Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record nor did he contest the agreement of parity.

¶12

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶13

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the

¶15

bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Jitendra involved in Case Crime No. 27 of 2021 at Police Station-Saidangali, DistrictAmroha under Sections 323, 324, 326 I.P.C. be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶17

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 26.11.2021 Dhananjai

Jitendra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jabir @ Jakir Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Batham Vs State of U.P.

Shueb Vs State of U.P.

Tarbabu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Shrotiya Vs state of up