Jitendra Alias Jittu vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24256 of 2025

¶3

Jitendra Alias Jittu

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Tripathi, Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 67

¶7

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶8

List has been revised.

¶9

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tirpathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 81 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238(1) of BNS, Police Station Dhampur, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant has been added subsequently on the information given by the police informer. A false recovery of mobile has been planted on him.

¶12

Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

¶13

The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

¶14

A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian

¶15

BAIL No. 24256 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 .

¶18

Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” .

¶19

Learned A.G.A./State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶20

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A./State Law Officer.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant- Jitendra Alias Jittu , who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶23

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶25

BAIL No. 24256 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶28

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

¶29

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶30

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶31

November 13, 2025

¶32

Kamarjahan

¶33

Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jitendra Alias Jittu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Alias Jittu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivam Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Utkarsh vs State of U.P.

Balraj Alias Balley vs State of U.P.

Ninha @ Bachcha @ Mohammad Hussain vs State of U.P.

Jamat Ali vs State of U.P.

Vishesh Pal vs State of U.P.