Allowed

Jitendra and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2022BAIL/2149/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application for applicants Jitendra and Another. It held that since identically placed co-accused were already granted bail for similar offenses under the same FIR, it was a fit case for the applicants' release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, or commit similar offenses.

Jitendra and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2149 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bindu Kumari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that co-accused Mange Ram, Amit and Karan have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.36464 of 2021. He further submits that since the role of applicants is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, the applicants are also entitled for bail. It is further submitted that applicants have no criminal history. They are languishing in jail since 20.06.2021 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶7

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Considering the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the identically placed co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let applicants Jitendra and Kanihiya involved in Case Crime No.246 of 2021, under Sections 452, 323, 326, 306, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶10

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

¶11

The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶12

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

¶13

The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶14

The applicants 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 8.2.2022 ss

¶17

Digitally signed by SANDEEP SHARMA Date: 2022.02.16 17:36:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu @ Pankaj Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Seema Shastri Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P.

Sudhir Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Nirmala Devi Vs State of U.P.