Allowed

Jitendra Singh @ Jeetu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2023BAIL/52707/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to an under-trial convict facing serious charges under IPC Sections 302, 504, 323, considering jail overcrowding, lack of criminal history, and fundamental right to speedy trial, with directed trial conclusion within one year.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions including appearing at trial and not seeking adjournments.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:220403

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52707 of 2022 Applicant :- Jitendra Singh @ Jeetu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Yadav,Manvendra Nath Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and coaccused, Smt. Sarla, were assigned the role of putting the deceased on fire. He has submitted that co-accused, Smt. Sarla, has already been enlarged on bail by this court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18994 of 2020. The trial court has send status report which shows that the statement of only 2 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. The applicant is in jail since 01.02.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit. The dispute took place all of a sudden. Since the deceased was abusing the applicant and his wife also and hence the incident took place. The deceased put herself on fire.

¶7

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let the applicant, Jitendra Singh @ Jeetu Yadav, involved in Case Crime No. 179 of 2019, under Sections- 302, 504, 323 IPC, Police Station- Moth, District- Jhansi, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the

¶10

like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶13

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶16

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

¶17

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year.

¶19

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance within ten days.

¶20

Order Date :- 21.11.2023 Rohit

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Singh @ Jeetu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Singh @ Jeetu Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Riyaz Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anshul @ Anshu Vs State of U.P.

Billu Urf Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Lal Alias Sundar Lal Vs State of U.P.

Sona Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar @ Goli Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others