Dismissed

Jogendra @ Lala v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2023BAIL/10951/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected a bail application filed by Jogendra @ Lala involved in an FIR alleging murder and common intention under the IPC. The court noted the gravity of the offence, the cause of death, and the applicant's active role, finding no grounds to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; record of trial court to be returned for commencement of trial.

Jogendra @ Lala Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10951 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Jogendra @ Lala Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Singh,Mohd. Monis,Nazrul Islam Jafri(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 541 of 2010, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452 IPC, Police Station Titavi, District Muzaffar Nagar with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Yogendra, the informant has lodged first information report dated 17.08.20210 at 19.30 hours against three named accused Jogendra @ Lala, Jaipal and Ravi and 3-4 unknown persons alleging inter alia therein that few days prior to the to the alleged incident, some hot-talk took place between the Dheer Singh, his son Amit and the applicant Jogendra @ Lala and the applicant threatened them of dire consequences. On 17.08.2010 at 6.00 p.m., Jogendra @ Lala, Jaipal and Ravi along with other 3-4 unknown persons armed with rifles and country made pistols came to the house of the informant with intention to kill fired upon Dheer Singh, due to which he died on the spot. On hearing the sound of gun shot, the informant, Smt. Usha (the wife of the deceased) and nephew Amit ran to save him, then the alleged persons fired upon them. Amit saved his life by climbing towards roof of the adjacent houses and the informant and his sister-in-law saved their lives by closing the doors of the rooms.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer against the applicant. The applicant has no concern with the alleged crime in any manner. His name has been roped in the first information report due to village enmity. The applicant has a good reputation in the village. It is next submitted that applicant has a criminal history of one more

¶9

case, which has been explained by contending that the applicant has been acquitted by the trial court vide order dated 21.11.2007 in Sessions Trial No. 1078 of 2004 connected with 1207 of 2007 arising out of Case Crime No. 39 of 2001, under sections 307/34, 506 IPC, police station Titavi, district Muzaffar Nagar, copy whereof has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit dated 05.12.2022. it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that till date charges have not been framed against the applicant as the record of the trial court is requisitioned by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal filed by accused-appellants Jaipal and Abhishek @ Ravi. It is next contended that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.05.2016. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the present applicant has absconded from the proceedings before the trial court, thereafter his trial was separated from the other co-accused persons. The applicant is the main accused. The applicant is named in the first information report. The role of firing has been assigned to the present applicant. The deceased Dheer Singh died at the spot. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death of the deceased is Hemorrhage shock as a result of firearm weapon injury. On the body of the deceased 13 number of injuries including entry and exit wounds of fire arm have been found. The eye-witness account has corroborated the prosecution version in their statements. The applicant has been involved actively in the commission of crime.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced on behalf of parties, nature of injuries, gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment, I do not find any good ground to grant bail to the applicant.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

¶13

Since, the record of the trial court is before the Division Bench of this Court in criminal appeal filed by other co-accused Jaipal and Abhishek @ Ravi, Joint Registrar (Judicial)(Listing) is directed to seek instructions from the appropriate Division Bench for sending back the lower court record to the trial court after preparing the paper book, so that the trial of the present applicant may commence.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.1.2023 Sazia

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jogendra @ Lala v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jogendra @ Lala 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

Mithilesh Vs State of U.P.

Pintoo Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramdhani and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shivji @ Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Anju Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Babli Vs State of U.P and 3 Others