Rohit Joshi v. State of U.P
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
application is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 201, 302, 364A, 427
Judgment
Applicant :- Rohit Joshi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreen Masroor, Sadrul Islam Jafri, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lalit Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Matter is taken up in the revised call. Heard Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sadrul Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. This is the second bail application. By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 206 of 2024 at Police Station Malpura District Agra under Section 364A, 302, 201, 34, 427 I.P.C. The applicant is in jail since
Operative part
08.06.2024. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 19.09.2024. The trial is on foot. No fresh ground for bail is made out at this stage. Without going into the merits of the case, the bail application is dismissed. Learned District Judge as well as trial judge shall ensure strict compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the first bail application registered as Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 33887 of 2024. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial judge through the learned District Judge, Agra by the Registrar (Compliance) by E-mail. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Jaswant JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: application is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 201, 302, 364A, 427.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 05 Aug 2025. The bench was DISTRICT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.