Jatin Savita vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41832 of 2025

Jatin Savita

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akansha Verma, Deepak Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 70

¶8

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶9

Supplementary affidavit filed, today in Court, on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Purushottam Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶11

This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Jatin Savita seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.217 of 2025, under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 318(4) B.N.S., Police Station Shivrajpur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 10.10.2025. It is submitted that five accused persons including the applicant are named in the FIR. It is further submitted that three motorcycles were recovered from joint possession of applicant and co-accused persons Ashutosh Yadav @ Ashu, Anuj Kamal, Saurabh Yadav on the spot and thereafter from joint pointing out of applicant and co-accused Shivaji three motorcycles were recovered from their possession but no independent and reliable witness was present at the time of preparation of recovery memo and arrest of applicant. It is argued that no incriminating article was recovered from the possession of applicant. It is further argued that co-accused Shivaji having similar role has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42507 of 2025. It is next argued that applicant has criminal history of two cases which have been explained in

¶13

BAIL No. 41832 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

para 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant. It is lastly submitted that since charge-sheet has already been submitted, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677 , dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

¶18

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

¶19

(ii) 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.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

¶21

(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 of accused personally to explain circumstances

¶22

BAIL No. 41832 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

appearing in the evidence against him.

¶25

(v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly, in accordance with law.

¶26

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

¶27

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶28

December 16, 2025 RA

¶29

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jatin Savita v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatin Savita 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

Mukesh Agrahari vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya Tiwari vs State of U.P.

Yashwant vs State of U.P.

Hari Babu @ Harish Baboo vs State of U.P.

Laakhan Singh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Dutt Sharma vs State of U.P.