Allowed

Raghvendra Singh Jatav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2022BAIL/8116/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. 79 allowed a bail application by Raghvendra Singh Jatav, a gangster, accused under U.P. Gangsters Act 1986. The court cited jail overcrowding during the pandemic and noted the applicant's explanation of criminal history as grounds for bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on his own bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding interference with evidence and future conduct.

Raghvendra Singh Jatav Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8116 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raghvendra Singh Jatav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Shrawan Kumar Ojha, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Raghvendra Singh Jatav for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.17 of 2021 under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police StationRendhar, District- Jalaun.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 22.3.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by SHO Shailendra Singh before the P.S. Rendhar, District Jalaun, being FIR No. 0017 on 12.2.2022 at 20:24 hours under Section 2/3 of Gangsters Act against the applicant and another.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards para-11 of the paper-book being gang chart arguing that there are three criminal cases shown to be pending against the applicant being Case Crime no.163 of 2020, Case Crime No. 011 of 2021 and Case Crime no. 177 of 2020, in which applicant has been enlarged on bail. However, learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure-3 bearing orders dated 31.1.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.46874 of 2021, order dated 20.11.2021 passed in Bail Application No.614 of 2021 and order dated 7.4.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12087 of 2021 as well as the two cases being Case Crime no. 12 of 2021 and 137 of 2021 in which he has been bailed out, reference of which has been given at pargraph11 of the bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that once the applicant has been enlarged on bail in all the cases mentioned above, the invocation of proceedings under the Gangsters Act is impermissible, while the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.2.2021. Learned counsel for the

¶10

applicant has further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail, he be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Countering the said submission, the learned AGA has though opposed the bail, but he could not dispute the fact that the criminal history of the applicant has been properly explained, as per the instructions received by him.

¶12

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, prima facie this Court finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the applicant has properly explained the criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 12.2.2021, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶13

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation ( Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India ). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶14

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Raghvendra Singh Jatav 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶16

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

(iv) The applicant 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 to any police officer or tamper with the

¶20

evidence.

¶21

(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

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

¶23

Any observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.3.2022 N.S.Rathour

¶25

Digitally signed by NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2022.03.08 13:45:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raghvendra Singh Jatav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghvendra Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irfan Vs State of U.P.

Akshay @ Monti Vs State of U.P.

Amir Khan Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Chhote Lala Tiwari Vs State of up