Allowed

Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2024/8183/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought under Sections 394 and 411 IPC. Applicant claimed false implication, explained two prior cases, was jailed since May 2024 with chargesheet filed, and an identically placed co-accused had been granted bail. Court found it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to stated conditions including no tampering, attendance at trial, and verification of sureties by court concerned.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52040

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8183 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amarjeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant,learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 182 of 2024, under sections 394 & 411 of I.P.C., P.S.Thakurganj, District -Lucknow.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next added that the applicant was the passer-by and the police has implicated him, though, there is no cogent piece of evidence against him. He has further shown falsity in the prosecution story and submitted that the applicant has explained two cases criminal history in paragraph nos. 15 & 16 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 02-05-2024. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if he is granted bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Further added that identically situated co-accused person namely, Prince Sonkar has already been granted bail by this court vide order dated 25-06-2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6980 of 2024.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, the chargesheet has been filed against the applicant, but, he could not dispute the fact that the co-accused person named above, has already been granted bail by this court.

¶10

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the record, it transpires that the applicant has explained two cases criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 02-052024 and chargesheet has been filed in the case. The co-accused person named above has already been granted bail.

¶11

This court has also taken note of the fact that except apart the abovementioned two cases, there is no other criminal antecedent of the applicant and further the applicant has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if he is granted bail; thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶13

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶14

(2) 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. He shall remain present

¶15

before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3) 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.; and

¶17

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 30.7.2024

¶21

AKS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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

Mohd. Mustafa @ Chand Babu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Deepu @ Shailendra Savita vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko.

Neelam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ayodhya Prasad Rawat vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Lalit Kant Verma and 18 Others vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Women Welfare (Mission Vatsalya Yojna ) New Delhi and 3 Others

Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko