Jitendra Rajpoot @ Jeetu v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49686 of 2023 Applicant :- Jitendra Rajpoot @ Jeetu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 182 of 2023, under Sections 364, 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Rath, District Hamirpur, during the pendency of trial. 3 Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Ram Babu Rajpoot in police custody. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. The victim was not recovered from the custody of the applicant. At present there is no cogent evidence to link the applicant with the offence. It is next contended that Ram Babu Rajpoot has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

15.06.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24874 of 2023. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since

14.10.2023 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Ram Babu Rajpoot in police custody. Ram Babu Rajpoot has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has remained confined for almost two months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicant Jitendra Rajpoot @ Jeetu involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶7In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 13.12.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad