Dismissed

Jitendra @ Jeetu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2023BAIL/53251/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the fourth bail application filed by the applicant in a murder and arson case. Noting the absence of fresh grounds and prior rejections, the court declined to grant bail despite the applicant's prolonged detention, though it directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial directed to be concluded expediently under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Jitendra @ Jeetu Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53251 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra @ Jeetu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶6

By means of this fourth bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 156 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 of I.P.C., Police Station- Khurja Dehat, DistrictBulandshahar, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

First, second and third bail applications of the applicant were rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide orders dated 09.09.2020, 22.09.2020 and 17.02.2021, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 24154 of 2020, 23754 of 2020 and 3460 of 2021 respectively.

¶8

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has been languishing in jail since 20.06.2019, but his trial has not yet been concluded and similarly situated co-accused Rakesh Khatik had been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 19.10.2020, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24186 of 2020.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that on account of seeking frequent adjournment on behalf of accused persons, trial of the applicant has not yet been concluded.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that no new ground has been put-forth by the learned counsel for the applicant except the detention period of the applicant, as noted above. So far as parity of bail order dated 19.10.2020 of co-

¶11

accused Rakesh Khatik, as noted above, is concerned, I find that issue of parity with bail order dated 19.10.2020 of co-accused Rakesh Khatik has already been considered while rejecting third bail application of the applicant, therefore, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶13

It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶14

However, considering the detention period of the applicant, the trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties in accordance with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.4.2023 Kashifa

¶16

Digitally signed by :- KASHIFA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra @ Jeetu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra @ Jeetu 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

Bablu Rajbhar @ Bablu Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Narendra Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Pardeshi Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Laxman Verma Vs State of U.P.