Allowed

Jitendra Kumar @ Satpal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023BAIL/38511/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, the High Court observed on merits and allowed the application. The court noted the completion was not satisfactorily refuted that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and based on the discussion, the bail was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions to appear in court and not tamper with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180514

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38511 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar @ Satpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghuvansh Misra,Ratnakar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 79 of 2023 at Police Station- Aunchha, DistrictMainpuri, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC. The applicant is in jail since 11.04.2023.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 19.07.2023.

¶8

The following arguments made by Shri Raghuvansh Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Shri Shubham Yadav, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶9

The applicant was not named in the FIR.

¶10

There is no direct evidence against the applicant.

¶11

This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The chain of incriminating circumstances against the applicant is not complete.

¶12

The witnesses of last seen were present at the time of inquest on 09.04.2023. They did not name the applicants nor did they lodge the FIR. The FIR was got lodged on 10.04.2023.

¶13

The applicants were belatedly named by the aforesaid witnesses after deliberations with interested parties as having been last seen in the company of the deceased. The statement of the said witnesses are unreliable.

¶14

The aforesaid witnesses namely Arvind and Ravikant are interested in as much as they have an interest to oust the claim of the widow of the deceased from the property of the latter.

¶15

No incriminating article which can be linked with the offence has been recovered from the applicant.

¶16

Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶17

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶18

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicant- Jitendra Kumar @ Satpal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶22

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.9.2023 Vandit

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Kumar @ Satpal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar @ Satpal 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

Balkrishna @ Lala Pal Vs State of U.P.

Raj Prajapati Alias Virendra Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankush Vs State of U.P.

Faizal Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Kumar Vs State of U.P.