Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 9 October, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194072 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29325 of 2023 Applicant :- Jitendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Om Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. Heard Sri Rishikant Rai Advocate holding brief of Sri Hari Om Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a common order dated 22.07.2021 by Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J. (as he was then) passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28618 of 2019 (Bhagwat Yadav vs. State of U.P.) along with the connected matters.
3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Jitendra Yadav, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 434 of 2018, under Sections 307, 302 and 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 CLA Act, Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur.
4. The facts of the case is that a first information report was lodged on 16.10.2018 by Smt. Sangeeta Devi against the applicant and 03 accused persons alleging therein that on 16.10.2018 at about 3.30 p.m. Anikesh Yadav her nephew was going for having his shaving done whereby all the accused persons came on Fortuner car with countrymade pistol and opened firing upon him and murdered him.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that co-accused Arvind Yadav, Bhagwat Yadav have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 14.02.2023 and 13.06.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12651 of 2022 and 6564 of 2023, the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-23 to the affidavit. Further co-accused Raju Yadav @ Rajkumar Yadav has also been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47295 of 2022, the copy of the said order has been produced before the Court which is taken on record. Learned counsel has further argued that two witnesses namely P.W.-1 Sangeeta Devi and P.W.-2 Vishal Yadav have been examined before the trial court and they are not eye-witnesses of the incident. It is argued that Sunil Sharma who is an alleged injured witness was examined before the trial court as P.W.-3 who has given a different version. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicant in the present case is false. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a detailed order passed by another Bench of this Court. It is argued that the applicant is reported to be having criminal history of 08 cases which although have been explained in paragraph 17 of the affidavit but the same would go to show that there is one other case under Section 302 I.P.C. being Case Crime No. 770 of 2016 in which the applicant is stated to be on bail. It is argued that the other cases being Case Crime No. 103 of 2019, under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster Act, 1986, Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur; Case Crime No. 449 of 2018, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Pipraich, District Gorakhpur; Case Crime No. 514 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 332, 336, 34, 353, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur; Case Crime No. 794 of 2016, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Khorawar, District Gorakhpur; Case Crime No. 514 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 336, 332, 353, 504, 34 I.P.C. & 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur and Case Crime No. 166 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 307 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur which would go to show the involvement of the applicant in criminal activities. It is argued that even after the present case, the applicant was nominated as a member of gang in a matter pertaining to Gangsters Act.
7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2021. In so far as the ground as argued regarding co-accused(s) being granted bail is concerned, it is trite law that parity is not binding upon the Court, it may have its persuasive value. The same has been held in detail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42092 of 2020 (Dheeraj Kumar Shukla vs. State of U.P.) in the order dated 06.07.2021 in paragraph 17. The applicant as per his own showing in paragraph 17 is involved in total 08 cases including the present case. There is repetition of an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The other matters are also of serious nature. No ground for bail is made out.
8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, criminal history of the applicant and his involvement in a case under Section 302 I.P.C. for the second time and other cases against him, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023 AS Rathore (Samit Gopal,J.)