Allowed

Jeetu @ Jitendra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2021BAIL/24584/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The applicant challenged the evidence, citing false implication, unreliable recovery measurements, and lack of independent witnesses. The court held in view of pandemic-related jail overcrowding that the applicant was entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each.

Jeetu @ Jitendra Vs State of U.P. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24584 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Jeetu @ Jitendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiresh Kumar,Raghavendra Pati Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Raghavendra Pati Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No.54 of 2021 at Police Station-Chatta, District-Agra under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and Sections 188, 269 and 270 I.P.C.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Incharge Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS Act), Agra, on 08.06.2021.

¶9

The applicant is in jail since 24.04.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶10

Shri Raghavendra Pati Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 320 gm. Alprazolam has been shown from the applicant. The weight of the recovered substance as stated in the F.I.R. is unreliable as accurate scientific instruments were not used for weighment. The recovery was made

¶11

in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 42 read with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. There is no independent witness or public witness to the alleged recovery. Learned counsel for the applicant also explains the criminal history of the applicant. Lastly it is submitted 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.

¶12

Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned AGA could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Jeetu @ Jitendra involved in Case Crime No.54 of 2021 at Police Station-Chatta, DistrictAgra under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and Sections 188, 269 and 270 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 :- 23.11.2021 Dhananjai

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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Hawaldar Vs State of U.P.

Nittar @ Netrapal Vs State of U.P.

Sarfaraz @ oni Vs State of U.P.

Suhail Vs State of U.P.

Munesh Vs State of U.P.

Shivnath Vs State of U.P. and Another