Jaikesh Pal @ Jagesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21577

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3203 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Jaikesh Pal @ Jagesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Prashant Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Srivastava, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.0372 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) and 238 B.N.S., registered at Police Station Manjhila, District Hardoi.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 19.11.2024 against three persons i.e. Ramanpal, Pinki and Jaikesh Pal (present applicant), stating that the informant's son aged 22 years had gone missing at about 3 p.m. on 10.11.2024 regarding which a missing report was given to the police on the same day. The skeleton of informant's son and his clothes were found in a sugarcane field on 18.11.2024. The informant expressed apprehension that the accused persons had killed his son. He stated that he had identified the skeleton from the clothes present near it.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is a young man aged 23 years having no criminal history and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶11

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., he reiterated the FIR version.

¶12

Independent witnesses had stated that people were talking that the deceased was having a love-affair with coaccused/Pinki. The deceased had some objectionable photos/videos of Pinki and he was not agreeing to delete the photos and videos. Pinki told it to the applicant, who is her second lover and, therefore, the accused persons killed the deceased.

¶13

The postmortem examination report mentions that the body was in a skeleton condition and cause of death and time of death could not be ascertained.

¶14

The learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the bail application and on the basis of written instructions provided to him, he has submitted that the allegations have been established during investigation and a charge-sheet has been submitted against all the three accused persons on 15.12.2024. He has submitted that the call-detail record of the deceased has revealed that the deceased used to talk to co-accused/Pinki through mobile-phone. He has further submitted that the samples have been sent for DNA examination for identification of the skeleton.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the deceased had gone missing on 10.11.2024 and the skeleton was discovered on 18.11.2024; normally a dead-body cannot be converted into a skeleton in a short span of about a week; the dead-body had turned into skeleton and the clothes present on it are not said to have been mutilated; that besides suspicion there is no other material at this stage, which may even prima facie establish

¶16

involvement of the present applicant in commission of the offence; that the applicant is a young man having no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 19.11.2024, whereas the investigation already stands concluded, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

¶17

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant- Jaikesh Pal @ Jagesh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶20

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶21

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 17.4.2025 MVS/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jaikesh Pal @ Jagesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaikesh Pal @ Jagesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Koyali @ Rehana @ Khalikun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Sri Jitendra Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Parmanand Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Azam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.