High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Jitendra Pratap Singh @ Jeetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Murli Manohar Srivastava,Upmanyu Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sumit Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Shri Murli Manohar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in FIR/Case Crime No.214 of 2023 in the added Section 302 IPC, which was initially lodged under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 326, 447 & 506 IPC, Police Station- Sohra Mau, District- Unnao.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 12.12.2023 against 10 persons, including the applicant, stating that the accused persons had forcibly taken possession of 12 biswa land of the informant's father and they were getting a boundary constructed around that land, On 12.12.2023, the accused persons poured petrol on the informant's father. Three accused persons- Shubham, Vaibhav Singh alias Shishu Singh and Jitendra Pratap Singh alias Jeetu (the applicant) were carrying weapons. Initially, the FIR was lodged under Section 307 IPC. The informant's father died on 18.12.2023 and thereafter Section 302 IPC was added by the Prosecution.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant, who is in jail since 07.07.2024, is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, criminal history of the applicant of one case has been explained in para-7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 05.05.2025.

5. It has further been stated in the affidavit that a dispute regarding demarcation of land was going on between the applicant's father and the deceased. An order for demarcation of land was passed on 17.11.2023 and the actual demarcation on site was carried out on 9.12.2023. It was in furtherance of the aforesaid order and the demarcation that the boundary wall was constructed around the land.

6. The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail applicant. A copy of the relevant extract of case diary annexed with the counter affidavit contains the dying declaration of the deceased recorded on 12.12.2023, wherein he stated that while he was sitting at his shop on 12.12.2023, Jitendra Singh, Virendra Singh, Shubham Singh and Shishu Singh came there. Jitendra Singh poured petrol on his body. Shishu Singh was catching hold of him, therefore, he could not run away. Shubham Singh set him ablaze.

7. The aforesaid statement allegedly given by the victim on 12.12.2023 has been recorded in the case diary in CD No.7 on 20.12.2023.

8. The Investigating Officer has already submitted a charge- sheet on 06.08.2024.

9. It has also been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the co-accused Vaibhav Singh alias Shishu Singh has been granted bail by this court by means of an order dated 07.03.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11286 of 2024 and co- accused Gaurav Singh (Name as Shubham Singh in the FIR) has already been granted bail by this Court by means of order dated 02.04.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2645 of 2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that case of the present applicant is on exact parity with the case of aforesaid two co-accused persons, therefore, on the basis of parity, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

10. Shri Murli Manohar Srivastava, has also informed that complainant Soni has filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6260/2025 and SLP (Crl) No.7017 of 2025 against the bail orders of Vaibhav Singh alias Shishu Singh and Gaurav Singh (Name as Shubham Singh in the FIR), which have been rejected by the Apex Court vide common order dated 18.07.2025.

11. Shri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that the present applicant is having criminal history of one case, which has been committed by him after releasing on anticipatory bail, therefore, if he is released on bail, he may likely cause any harm to the informant and family members of the deceased, therefore, any condition may be imposed against him.

12. Without entering into merits of the case; having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the dying declaration of the informant allegedly made on 12.12.2023 has been recorded in the case diary on 20.12.2023; in that statement, the deceased stated that co-accused Vaibhav Singh had caught hold of him while he was set ablaze and Vaibhav Singh is not said to have suffered any burn injury; that the FIR alleges that the accused persons had forcibly taken possession of the land of the informant's father whereas the possession appears to have been handed over in legal proceedings regarding demarcation, coupled with the fact that criminal history of the applicant of one case has been explained in para-7 of the supplementary affidavit; the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.07.2024; charge-sheet has already been submitted on 06.08.2024; the aforesaid co-accused persons, namely, Vaibhav Singh alias Shishu Singh and Gaurav Singh (Name as Shubham Singh in the FIR) having similar role have already been granted bail by this Court and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

14. Let applicant- Jitendra Pratap Singh alias Jeetu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code/ 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./ 84 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code/ 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./ 351 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (vi) It is made clear that after releasing from jail, the present applicant shall not approach or meet the informant or family members of the deceased and shall not pressurize or intimidate them.

15. Before parting with, learned Trial Court is directed to conduct and conclude the trial with expedition taking recourse of Section 309 Cr.P.C./ 346 B.N.S.S. and no unnecessary adjournment shall be given to any of the parties. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Jitendra Pratap Singh @ Jeetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Murli Manohar Srivastava,Upmanyu Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sumit Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Shri Murli Manohar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and perused the records.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in FIR/Case Crime No.214 of 2023 in the added Section 302 IPC, which was initially lodged under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 326, 447 & 506 IPC, Police Station- Sohra Mau, District- Unnao.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 12.12.2023 against 10 persons, including the applicant, stating that the accused persons had forcibly taken possession of 12 biswa land of the informant's father and they were getting a boundary constructed around that land, On 12.12.2023, the accused persons poured petrol on the informant's father. Three accused persons- Shubham, Vaibhav Singh alias Shishu Singh and Jitendra Pratap Singh alias Jeetu (the applicant) were carrying weapons. Initially, the FIR was lodged under Section 307 IPC. The informant's father died on 18.12.2023 and thereafter Section 302 IPC was added by the Prosecution.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant, who is in jail since 07.07.2024, is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further, criminal history of the applicant of one case has been explained in para-7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 05.05.2025.

5. It has further been stated in the affidavit that a dispute regarding demarcation of land was going on between the applicant's father and the deceased. An order for demarcation of land was passed on 17.11.2023 and the actual demarcation on site was carried out on 9.12.2023. It was in furtherance of the aforesaid order and the demarcation that the boundary wall was constructed around the land.

6. The State has filed a counter affidavit opposing the bail applicant. A copy of the relevant extract of case diary annexed with the counter affidavit contains the dying declaration of the deceased recorded on 12.12.2023, wherein he stated that while he was sitting at his shop on 12.12.2023, Jitendra Singh, Virendra Singh, Shubham Singh and Shishu Singh came there. Jitendra Singh poured petrol on his body. Shishu Singh was catching hold of him, therefore, he could not run away. Shubham Singh set him ablaze.

7. The aforesaid statement allegedly given by the victim on 12.12.2023 has been recorded in the case diary in CD No.7 on 20.12.2023.

8. The Investigating Officer has already submitted a charge- sheet on 06.08.2024.

9. It has also been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the co-accused Vaibhav Singh alias Shishu Singh has been granted bail by this court by means of an order dated 07.03.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11286 of 2024 and co- accused Gaurav Singh (Name as Shubham Singh in the FIR) has already been granted bail by this Court by means of order dated 02.04.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2645 of 2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that case of the present applicant is on exact parity with the case of aforesaid two co-accused persons, therefore, on the basis of parity, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

10. Shri Murli Manohar Srivastava, has also informed that complainant Soni has filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6260/2025 and SLP (Crl) No.7017 of 2025 against the bail orders of Vaibhav Singh alias Shishu Singh and Gaurav Singh (Name as Shubham Singh in the FIR), which have been rejected by the Apex Court vide common order dated 18.07.2025.

11. Shri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have opposed the aforesaid bail application by submitting that the present applicant is having criminal history of one case, which has been committed by him after releasing on anticipatory bail, therefore, if he is released on bail, he may likely cause any harm to the informant and family members of the deceased, therefore, any condition may be imposed against him.

12. Without entering into merits of the case; having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the dying declaration of the informant allegedly made on 12.12.2023 has been recorded in the case diary on 20.12.2023; in that statement, the deceased stated that co-accused Vaibhav Singh had caught hold of him while he was set ablaze and Vaibhav Singh is not said to have suffered any burn injury; that the FIR alleges that the accused persons had forcibly taken possession of the land of the informant's father whereas the possession appears to have been handed over in legal proceedings regarding demarcation, coupled with the fact that criminal history of the applicant of one case has been explained in para-7 of the supplementary affidavit; the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.07.2024; charge-sheet has already been submitted on 06.08.2024; the aforesaid co-accused persons, namely, Vaibhav Singh alias Shishu Singh and Gaurav Singh (Name as Shubham Singh in the FIR) having similar role have already been granted bail by this Court and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings properly and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime.

13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

14. Let applicant- Jitendra Pratap Singh alias Jeetu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code/ 269 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./ 84 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code/ 208 of the B.N.S., 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./ 351 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (vi) It is made clear that after releasing from jail, the present applicant shall not approach or meet the informant or family members of the deceased and shall not pressurize or intimidate them.

15. Before parting with, learned Trial Court is directed to conduct and conclude the trial with expedition taking recourse of Section 309 Cr.P.C./ 346 B.N.S.S. and no unnecessary adjournment shall be given to any of the parties. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 RBS/- [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench