Allowed

Jitendra Joshi @ Guddu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2022BAIL/6324/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to Jitendra Joshi accused of offences under IPC 504, 506 and IT Act 67A. Despite serious nature, compromise exists, incriminating material destroyed. Bail granted on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail allowed. Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of attending trial, non-tampering with witnesses, and avoiding illegal activities.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6324 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra Joshi @ Guddu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aman Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suvansit Kumar Jaiswal

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

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

¶6

The accused- applicant Jitendra Joshi @ Guddu, is involved in Case Crime No.0611 of 2021, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67A of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Izzatnagar, District- Bareilly.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the both the parties were in relationship and now they have entered into a compromise. The copy of the compromise is appended at page-'35' of the paper book. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.08.2021 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶8

Learned counsel for the first informant has admitted the fact of compromise between the parties and has accepted that incriminating material has been destroyed by the applicant so the bail has not been opposed.

¶9

As per the first information report, the allegation upon the applicant is that he after preparing fake ID uploaded the obscene photographs of the first informant on social media.

¶10

The compromise is appended at page-'35' of the paper book but the same is between the fathers of both the parties. As both the parties are major, therefore, the compromise should be between themselves and not between their fathers.

¶11

In this regard, learned counsel for the first informant has submitted that keeping in view the future of the girl the document has not been signed by her but it is admitted by him that as compensation the draft mentioned in the compromise, has been given in the name of the girl herself. It is also admitted that the whole incriminating material has been destroyed. It is also contended by him that if the, applicant is released on bail

¶12

he has no objection.

¶13

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both the parties, considering the seriousness of the charge and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant, Jitendra Joshi @ Guddu , who is involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶15

The applicant will attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the dates fixed after release.

¶16

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶17

He will not indulge himself in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.3.2022 Radhika

¶22

Digitally signed by RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA Date: 2022.03.25 17:18:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Joshi @ Guddu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Joshi @ Guddu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamran Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Avneesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sunny Kumar Gaud Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sundar Bhati Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Babu Vs State of U.P.