Jillehasan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Acs/ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4568

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12363 of 2024

Applicant :- Jillehasan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Acs/ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

From perusal of the ordersheet, it transpires that the notice has been issued to the opposite party no. 2 on 27-11-2024 and as per the office report, the same is served upon the opposite party no. 2.

¶7

Case case called out.

¶8

No one is present on behalf of the complainant.

¶9

Under the aforesaid circumstances, the court is proceeding to pass orders in the absence of learned counsel for the complainant.

¶10

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

¶11

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. 242 of 2024, under sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 115(2), 352, 76, 351(2), 351(3) of B.N.S.,sections 3(1) Da, 3(1) Dha, 3(2) VA of the SC & ST Act and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, Police StationZahangeer Ganj, District-Ambedkar Nagar.

¶12

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 added that though the applicant is named in the first information report, but, no such incident has ever taken place and there is no independent public eye witness of the incident. He next added that this is no injury case and the false story is concocted and narrated in the first information report against the applicant. He submits that the police, without collecting any cogent piece of evidence against the applicant,

¶13

has filed the chargesheet and there is no complaint that the applicant has ever absconded from the investigation proceedings. He added that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 16-09-2024. He submits that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶14

Further submitted that the co-accused namely, Imran @ Naate has already been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 19-12-2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11685 of 2024 and the applicant is seeking parity of the same.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that there are serious allegations against the applicant and as such, he is not entitled for any relief, but, he could not dispute the fact that the co-accused named above has already been enlarged on bail.

¶16

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16-09-2024; there is no previous criminal history of the applicant as has been explained in paragraph 19 of the bail application coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶17

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶18

Let the applicant, Jillehasan, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his

¶19

furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶20

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

¶21

(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 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;

¶22

(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

¶23

(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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 23.1.2025 AKS

¶27

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

Jillehasan v. State of U.P. Thru. Acs/ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jillehasan v. State of U.P. Thru. Acs/ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tusharkant Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Dhaniram and Another Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Civil Secretariat Lucknow

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Soni Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ashish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raja Singh @ Veer Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.