Allowed

Jitendra @ Jitu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023BAIL/22391/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a murder case where his name was disclosed only during investigation via co-accused statements despite an initial FIR naming others. The court held the applicant was entitled to release.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:130157

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22391 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jitendra @ Jitu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Vaish,Vivek Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Vaish, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Rao, learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in case crime No. 337 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against three named (non applicants) and 10-12 unknown persons and according to the FIR, nominated accused persons alongwith their unknown associates committed murder of the brother of informant by making indiscriminate firing.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire allegations made against the applicant are totally false and baseless and during investigation when name of two accused persons Somesh and Praveen were disclosed and they were arrested by police then they disclosed the name of the applicant and thereafter informant and other witnesses also started disclosing the name of the applicant by stating that applicant is a hired criminal who participated in the instant case, on the instructions of nominated accused persons who were having enmity with the informant. He further submitted that expect this there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶10

He next submitted that although applicant is having criminal history of two other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and he is in jail in the present matter since 16.11.2022, therefore, he may be released on

¶11

bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is having criminal history of two cases but could not dispute the fact that criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application and his name was first time disclosed in the instant matter through the statement of the co-accused persons and even the alleged eye-witness did not state that he also participated in the incident and they only stated that he was hired by the nominated accused persons to commit the crime.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶14

From the perusal of the record, it appears that applicant was not named in the FIR, his complicity was revealed during investigation through the statement of the co-accused persons. Although, after statement of co-accused persons when the subsequent statement of informant was recorded under sections 161 Cr.P.C. then he also disclosed the name of the applicant but informant in her earlier statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. did not disclose the name of the applicant. Further, criminal history of the applicant has been explained in the instant bail application.

¶15

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Jitendra @ Jitu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social

¶21

activity.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶23

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶24

Order Date :- 3.7.2023

¶25

Ankita

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra @ Jitu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra @ Jitu 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

Chunna Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Hariom Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Gautam Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Asgar Vs State of U.P.

Joginder Alias Andahwa Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Vs State of U.P.