Jitesh Khandelwal v. State of U.P.)
Case Details
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Applicant is a servant of Devendra Singh Sherawat who is one of the accused in the instant case. He has never visited Mathura alongwith other co-accused persons. It is also submitted that no material available to link the present applicant in the commission of the offence as alleged in the first information report. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant further submitted that as per the C.C.T.V. Footage his image has not come, and therefore, his presence at the place of incident is doubtful. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant has no previous criminal history and he is a law abiding citizen. It is also submitted that co-accused Mohit Pawar has already been granted anticipatory bail in spite of his image was shown in the C.C.T.V. Footage. It is further argued that the case of the applicant is on better footing than that of co-accused Mohit Pawar who has already been granted anticipatory bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.02.2025. It is next contended that other co-accused persons have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated
27.11.2024, 16.12.2024, 15.01.2025, 10.01.2025, 15.01.2025,
17.01.2025, 06.01.2025, 07.01.2025, 08.01.2025 and 08.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 42507 of 2024 (Jitesh Khandelwal v. State of U.P.), 44894 of 2024 (Amit Chaudhary v. State of U.P.), 1005 of 2025 (Naresh Sharma v. State of U.P.), 875 of 2025 (Devesh Sharma v. State of U.P.), 1114 of 2025 (Ankur Chaudhary v. State of U.P.), 664 of 2025 (Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P.), 46478 of 2024 (Yogesh Kumar v. State of U.P.), 43730 of 2024 (Devendra Kumar Sehrawat v. State of U.P.), 254 of 2025 (Sagar Verma alias Hani v. State of U.P.) and 406 of 2025 (Govind Sharma v. State of U.P.) respectively. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that considering the aforesaid facts applicant may be released on anticipatory bail at the event of the arrest. He has undertaken to co- operate with the Investigating Agency and also undertaken that he will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting the anticipatory bail.
3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State vehemently opposed the instant application but not denied the facts as stated by learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant that no image of the applicant was found at the place of incident in C.C.T.V. footage, co-accused Mohit Pawar has been granted anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and other co-accused have also been granted regular bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Learned A.G.A. has also not denied that applicant has no previous criminal history.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
5. Taking into consideration the fact that learned A.G.A. has not denied the fact that applicant presence is not shown in the C.C.T.V. Camera at the spot, applicant has no previous criminal history and he was not named in the F.I.R., and therefore, no material available on record to link the present applicant in the commission of the offence as alleged in the instant F.I.R. He has also undertaken that he will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting the anticipatory bail.
6. Taking into consideration all entirety of the matter as discussed above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant till the submission of police report.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicant Adity Sehrawat be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 193 (3) B.N.S.S., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
8. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
9. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case expeditiously in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
10. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.
11. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 AKT (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Applicant is a servant of Devendra Singh Sherawat who is one of the accused in the instant case. He has never visited Mathura alongwith other co-accused persons. It is also submitted that no material available to link the present applicant in the commission of the offence as alleged in the first information report. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant further submitted that as per the C.C.T.V. Footage his image has not come, and therefore, his presence at the place of incident is doubtful. Learned counsel further submitted that applicant has no previous criminal history and he is a law abiding citizen. It is also submitted that co-accused Mohit Pawar has already been granted anticipatory bail in spite of his image was shown in the C.C.T.V. Footage. It is further argued that the case of the applicant is on better footing than that of co-accused Mohit Pawar who has already been granted anticipatory bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.02.2025. It is next contended that other co-accused persons have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated
27.11.2024, 16.12.2024, 15.01.2025, 10.01.2025, 15.01.2025,
17.01.2025, 06.01.2025, 07.01.2025, 08.01.2025 and 08.01.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 42507 of 2024 (Jitesh Khandelwal v. State of U.P.), 44894 of 2024 (Amit Chaudhary v. State of U.P.), 1005 of 2025 (Naresh Sharma v. State of U.P.), 875 of 2025 (Devesh Sharma v. State of U.P.), 1114 of 2025 (Ankur Chaudhary v. State of U.P.), 664 of 2025 (Manjeet Singh v. State of U.P.), 46478 of 2024 (Yogesh Kumar v. State of U.P.), 43730 of 2024 (Devendra Kumar Sehrawat v. State of U.P.), 254 of 2025 (Sagar Verma alias Hani v. State of U.P.) and 406 of 2025 (Govind Sharma v. State of U.P.) respectively. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submitted that considering the aforesaid facts applicant may be released on anticipatory bail at the event of the arrest. He has undertaken to co- operate with the Investigating Agency and also undertaken that he will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting the anticipatory bail.
3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State vehemently opposed the instant application but not denied the facts as stated by learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant that no image of the applicant was found at the place of incident in C.C.T.V. footage, co-accused Mohit Pawar has been granted anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and other co-accused have also been granted regular bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Learned A.G.A. has also not denied that applicant has no previous criminal history.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
5. Taking into consideration the fact that learned A.G.A. has not denied the fact that applicant presence is not shown in the C.C.T.V. Camera at the spot, applicant has no previous criminal history and he was not named in the F.I.R., and therefore, no material available on record to link the present applicant in the commission of the offence as alleged in the instant F.I.R. He has also undertaken that he will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting the anticipatory bail.
6. Taking into consideration all entirety of the matter as discussed above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant till the submission of police report.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicant Adity Sehrawat be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 193 (3) B.N.S.S., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
8. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
9. The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case expeditiously in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
10. The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.
11. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 AKT (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad