Allowed

Jitendra @ Pope v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2022BAIL/31815/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a second bail application under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120-B, 34 IPC and the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Granting bail was based on the fact that six co-accused were already released and more than six years had elapsed since the applicant's detention.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding evidence and witness influence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31815 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra @ Pope Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Shariq,Akhilesh Srivastava,Hemendra Kumar, Saksham Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satish Kumar Tyagi

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Saksham Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal, the learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, the learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶6

2.The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 624 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad.

¶7

3.The first bail application was rejected by means of an order dated 04.05.2017 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12989 of 2017.

¶8

4.It has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the charge sheet mentions 90 prosecution witnesses whereas till 05.03.2020, only 8 prosecution witnesses have been examined. The trial is going on in a very slow speed and 82 witnesses are yet to be examined. It has been stated in the affidavit that the co-accused persons Satveeri has been granted bail by means of an order dated 09.03.2018 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 30804 of 2017, co-accused Manoj Kumar has been granted bail by means of an order dated 22.10.2019 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 38806 of 2019, co-accused Nishant Bhadauria has been granted bail by means of an order dated 10.12.2019 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 51896 of 2019 and the co-accused Ram Kumar has been granted bail by means of an order dated 07.08.2020 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 16400 of 2020.

¶9

5.It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 18.08.2016. It has also been stated

¶10

in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with any evidence and in such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is also stated in the affidavit that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶11

6.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after passing of the aforesaid order dated 04.05.2017, the co-accused Manish Chaudhary, who is alleged to have fired gun shots with an AK - 47 rifle injuring six persons, has been granted bail by means of an order dated 16.06.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 690 of 2020. Another coaccused Vicky, against whom there is an allegation of hatching the conspiracy, has also been granted bail by means of an order dated 03.12.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28185 of 2020.

¶12

7.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case set up against the applicant is similar to that set up against the other co-accused persons, who have already been released on bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶13

8.Per contra, Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for grant of bail stating that it was a heinous crime, in which advanced weapons were used and the applicant was the main conspirator in the case.

¶14

9.Refuting the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused Vicky was also assigned the role of conspiracy and the case set up against the applicant is similar to that the case set up against the co-accused Vicky.

¶15

10.Having regard to the aforesaid facts and submissions and particularly the fact that after passing of the order dated 04.05.2017, six of the co-accused persons have already been granted bail as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.08.2016 and a period of more than six years has elapsed since the applicant is in jail, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail pending conclusion of the trial. The bail application is accordingly allowed .

¶16

11.Let the applicant - Jitendra @ Pope be released on bail in Case Crime No. 624 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following

¶17

conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶20

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

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 23.8.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶24

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.08.26 13:44:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra @ Pope v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra @ Pope 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

Bhorik Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sudarshan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sheelu Dubey Alias Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Nitin Kumar Nagar Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.