Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu @ Pulsar vs State Of U.P. on 18 March, 2021
Author: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45946 of 2020 Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu @ Pulsar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nitesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu @ Pulsar with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 0051 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302, 386, 504, 506 and 34 I.P.C. and 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that in the FIR the applicant has been assigned the role of exhortation and he has not been assigned any role of causing fire arm injury. In the initial statement, the informant and another witness have also not assigned any role of firing to the applicant. Subsequently, after 45 days from the date of incident, Devraj Raj Singh @ Chotu (injured) was examined and he made statement that the applicant also fired and he sustained fire arm injury in his forehead. It is further submitted that he has filed injury report of Devraj Singh @ Chotu in the supplementary affidavit and only lacerated wound has been found which is simple in nature. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the role of the applicant restricted only to exhortation of the case and he is not assigned the role of causing any firing. It is further submitted that the other accused persons who have been assigned the fire arm injuries namely Sumit, Sachin and Rahul and, therefore, the case of the applicant is distinguishable from those co-accused persons. It is further submitted that accused applicant has no criminal history and he is prepared to furnish sureties and bonds and there is no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence. Applicant is languishing in jail since 19.02.2020 and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and cooperate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. He has further submitted that after investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against the accused.
Considered the submission of both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the role of exhortation assigned to the applicant and the role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Sumit, Sachin and Rahul, therefore, the case of the applicant is distinguishable to the co-accused Sumit, Sachin and Rahul and without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that applicant is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 18.3.2021 Mini