Allowed

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jeetu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2024/783/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second bail application, the High Court granted bail to the applicant in a chargeable offense under Section 304 IPC. The order issued was based on the fact that a co-accused with an identical role had already been granted bail by the same court.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear in court on fixed dates and not abuse bail.

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jeetu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:67314

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 783 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Alias Jeetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Yadav,Amjad Siddiqui,Jitendra Kumar Gupta,Omkar,Raj Kumar Singh,Sheel Kumar,Sunil Kumar Maurya,Suresh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶7

This is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected as not pressed with liberty to file fresh.

¶8

Heard Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rakesh Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The applicant is involved in Case Crime No. 0438 of 2023, under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Ramkot, District Sitapur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that coaccused Rajendra, having assigned identical role by the prosecution, has already been granted bail by this Court on 13.09.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 785 of 2024. He has further submitted that he is pressing same grounds, which are taken in the bail application of the co-accused Rajendra.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant has further explained the criminal history of the applicant in paragraph nos. 7 to 13 of the supplementary affidavit filed on 15.03.2024.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the fact that the role of the applicant is identical to the role of co-accused Rajendra, who has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶13

Considering the overall aspects of the matter and the fact that co-accused Rajendra, who has been assigned the similar role to the present applicant, has already been granted bail by this Court and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶14

Let applicant (Jitendra Kumar alias Jeetu) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 27.9.2024 Virendra

¶21

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jeetu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar Alias Jeetu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Viresh Kumar Verma @ Urli Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Devraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civiil Sectt. Lko.

Madan Nag Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kalamu Alias Kalam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. U.P.

Sahil @ Chhotu @ Mahesh Nayar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Haarun vs Union of India (D.R.I)