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

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 351 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 311, 317 (3), 238 B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Pratapgarh.

¶11

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 04.11.2024 stating that the informant's son used to drive the vehicle as Ola Cab. He had taken a passenger from Charbagh Lucknow at 10.00 p.m. on 31.10.2024 for Pratapgarh. The police of Rudauli police station informed the informant at about 5.00 hrs. on 01.11.2024 that his son had been killed. Upon this information the informant came from UAE to Lucknow and lodged the F.I.R. He stated that the vehicle of his son was also missing. The relevant extracts of case diary has been annexed with the bail application, wherein the Investigating Officer has recorded that she had examined about 70-80 CCTV cameras from Lucknow, Sultanpur and Pratapgarh but in none of the CCTV cameras the car could be identified. It was seen at a toll plaza coming from Sultanpur to Lucknow but the date when the vehicle was seen has not been mentioned in the case diary. Further, in none of the images the persons sitting in the car have been identified. The police claimed to have arrested three persons including the applicant sitting in the car at Pratapgarh on 14.11.2024 and in the custodial confessional statement the accused persons confessed having killed the vehicle owner and taken away the car. The recovery of the car has not been witnessed by any independent witness.

¶12

BAIL No. 8498 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has explained the criminal history in paragraphs 28 to 33 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant is in jail since 15.11.2024.

¶15

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the allegations have been established during investigation and a charge sheet has been submitted in this case.

¶16

On due consideration of the bail order of co-accused Mohd. Sahil; the role assigned to the applicant; and the facts that prima facie the applicant has not been seen in the CCTV footage, and except joint recovery from the three accused and the confessional statement, there is no other material connecting the applicant with the crime; the applicant is in jail since 15.11.2024; chargesheet in this case has already been filed and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant Jabaaz be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶19

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

¶20

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iv) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance

¶23

BAIL No. 8498 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

with law.

¶26

(v) The applicant 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 IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶27

(vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶28

September 8, 2025

¶29

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jabaaz v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jabaaz v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

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

Pankaj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Chaman Kashyap Thru. Guardian His Father Sri Govind Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Saurabh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neetu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Jabaaz vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.