Allowed

Jitendra Yadav @ Mahendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2021CRLA/2032/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J. allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the bail rejection order. The court viewed the case as weak, relying largely on circumstantial evidence and broken links, noting that similar co-accused had their bail granted by coordinate benches. Bail was granted on personal bond with sureties and strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; Appellant granted bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties with specific conditions of cooperation and conduct.

Jitendra Yadav @ Mahendra Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2032 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Jitendra Yadav @ Mahendra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 10.01.2019 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Kanpur Dehat in Bail Application No.2463 of 2018 (Jitendra Yadav vs. State of U.P) in Case Crime No.194 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201, 394, 411, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sajeti, District-Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the present F.I.R. was lodged against unknown assailants and the name of the applicant has figured up on the statement of the informant and thereafter three persons namely Jitendra Yadav alias Mahendra, Munna alias Raghvendra and Nizam were arrested by the police on the information given by the informer. Thereafter, a confession was made by the appellant before the police and there is a recovery of a Samsung mobile and wrist watch of the deceased from the possession of the appellant. During investigation it has been borne out that the appellant was nurturing an illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased, except this there is no other incriminating material to directly connect the appellant with the commission of crime. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the case hinges upon broken links of circumstantial evidence, despite that Criminal Appeal No.2727 of 2019 of co-accused Sameer, Criminal Appeal No.2065 of 2019 of co-accused Kiran and Criminal Appeal No.2065 of 2019 were allowed by Coordinate Benches of this Court on different occasions. Contention is that the case of appellant is almost on same pedestal as of aforesaid co-accused, as such, his appeal should also be allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized upon the incarceration period of the appellant and has pointed out that he is languishing in jail since 07.2.2018 and has undergone more than a period of three years and seven months behind the bars.

¶8

Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, appear quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the period of detention already undergone by the appellant and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶11

Let the appellant- Jitendra Yadav @ Mahendra , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.

¶13

(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶14

(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED

¶17

FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶18

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.

¶19

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands ALLOWED. Impugned order dated 10.01.2019 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Kanpur Dehat, is hereby set aside. Order Date :- 6.9.2021 M. Kumar

Jitendra Yadav @ Mahendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Yadav @ Mahendra v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Sushant Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Diggu Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyamlal Gautam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt.Neelam Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankush Nagpal @ Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Alim Raza Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others