Allowed

Rajpal Jatav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2022BAIL/50776/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application filed by Rajpal Jatav under Sections 60(2) of U.P. Excise Act, 1910. The Court considered the lack of physical recovery of prepared liquor, absence of independent witnesses, and the applicant's prior release on bail as grounds for granting bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on the execution of personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50776 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajpal Jatav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar,Maohammd Nadeem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

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

¶6

On a query being put, learned AGA submitted that he has complete instructions in the matter, as such, this Court proceeded to hear the application for grant of bail on merits.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 364 of 2021, under Sections- 60(2) of U.P. Excise Act, 1910 Police Station-Saurikh, District-Kannauj with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case and in jail since 05.10.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the incident, as appears from the F.I.R., the incident is of about 12:00 Noon. As per averments made in the F.I.R., the applicant was manufacturing Kacchi liquor adjacent to the wall of one school situated at village Botham, P.S.-Saurikh, District-Kannauj. It is also stated that a perusal of F.I.R. would show that 550 liters of Lahan was also recovered from the situs of crime and the same was disposed of by the Police at the place of crime. Thus, this part of the prosecution itself create doubt in the story of the prosecution. The prepared liquor was not recovered by the Police. The applicant has been implicated under Section 60(2) of U.P. Excise Act, 1910.

¶10

He submitted that despite the fact that the incident is of about 12:00 Noon, there is no independent witness to support the story of the prosecution. He also stated that the applicant in the instant case has been implicated by the Police just to harass him and taking note of earlier cases against him which are indicated in the para 14 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application in which the applicant has already been enlarged on bail. He submitted that the Trial Court while rejecting the bail

¶11

application only considered the criminal history of the applicant. There is no independent witness to prove the story of the prosecution as also that there is no evidence in support of the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that maximum punishment under section 60(2) of the Act of 1910, is of three years. Prayer is to allow the bail application and release the applicant on bail.

¶12

It is next submitted that there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions, opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. However, he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the case.

¶14

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, as well as totality of facts and circumstances as also that no prepared liquor was found at the place of crime and the fact that except present case, the applicant has already been enlarged on bail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Let applicant - Rajpal Jatav be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

(2) Applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.

¶18

(3) Applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶19

(4) The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶20

(5) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶21

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 7.1.2022 Vinay/-

Rajpal Jatav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajpal Jatav 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

Waseem Khan Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Vs State of U.P.

Shivpal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Hazra Vs State of U.P.

Intiyaz Vs State of U.P.

Jasveer Yadav Vs State of U.P.