Jitendra @ Jeetu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35766 of 2023 Applicant :- Jitendra @ Jeetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Sharma,Vikash Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brij Bhushan Upadhyay Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record. This second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 329 of 2022, under Sections 354, 376, 452, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Malpura, District Agra with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42048 of 2022. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that after rejection of first bail application of applicant, proseuctrix was examined as P.W.-1 during trial and during her cross examination she categorically denied the version of the F.I.R. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that appellant has not committed any indecent activity with her. The brother of the informant who was P.W.-2 also denies the version of the prosecution during his cross examination. It is further submitted that as if now there is no evidence against the appellant on record. Applicant is languishing in jail since

08.08.2022 and criminal history of the appellant has already been explained at the time of hearing of the first bail application. In case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by the learned counsel for the respondent have supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:- "15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail." Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Jitendra @ Jeetu in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

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

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail. Order Date :- 7.11.2023 PS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad