Allowed

Jagjeevan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 May 2022BAIL/7048/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a FIR involving IPC offences regarding an altercation during a land dispute. The court considered the allocation of alleged injury to multiple accused and the applicant's undertaking to pay compensation while imposing conditions for future conduct.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond, two sureties, and undertaking to deposit Rs. 50,000 compensation within four weeks.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7048 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jagjeevan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Singh,Anju Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Trivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajeev Trivedi, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 458 of 2021, under Sections- 147, 148, 307, 323, 504, 336, 427 IPC, Police Station Jamunapar, District Mathura.

¶7

The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that on account of some dispute in relation to the land donated by the informant for the purposes of construction of Ambedkar Park altercation took place between the parties on the date of incident i.e. 04.12.2021 and some minor injuries were sustained by the injured. However, the allegations made in the FIR regarding causing injury with rope on the neck of the injured are completely false, as such, no offence under Section 307 IPC, is made out against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 20.12.2021.

¶8

In continuation, it is stated that a bare perusal of the FIR as also the statement of the injured would show that role, in relation to causing injury on the neck of the injured with rope, has been assigned to four persons. This fact creates a doubt in the story of the prosecution. He further submitted that in other words general allegations have been levelled by the injured for causing injury on his neck with rope against four persons, as such, it is not clear that who is the author of the injury caused to the injured though, no such injury in fact was caused at the time of incident.

¶9

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

¶10

liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the trial. The applicant is in jail since 20.12.2021 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak.

¶11

Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, based upon the instructions, submitted that considering the entire facts related to the incident, which are to the effect that the land in question was donated by the informant to the public at large and in the incident simple injuries were sustained and some damage was also caused to the vehicles of the informant in the incident, the applicant, without accepting the case of prosecution against him, is ready to compensate the injured and he undertakes to compensate with an amount to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.

¶12

At this stage, it would be appropriate to mention that on this ground alone, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. as also Sri Rajeev Trivedi, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. However, they could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the case particularly the role of causing injury on the neck of the injured has been assigned to four persons.

¶14

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, as well as totality of facts and circumstances including the statement of the injured as also period of incarceration and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future and keeping in mind that the role of causing injury in issue has been assigned to four persons 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 - Jagjeevan 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

¶19

Cr.P.C.

¶20

(4) In addition to above, as the learned counsel for the applicant on its own volition has given the undertaking on behalf of the applicant to provide an amount, as aforesaid, towards compensation to the injured, the applicant shall deposit the amount aforesaid before the court concerned within a period of four weeks from the date of release from the judicial custody, which shall be paid after due verification to the injured.

¶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 :- 5.5.2022 Vinay/-

¶23

Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR Date: 2022.05.07 15:11:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jagjeevan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagjeevan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Agrawal Vs State of U.P.

Pavan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ravi @ Ravindra Dhaka Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Radheyshyam @ Radhey Vs State of U.P.