| Prompt: | |
| Generate a Bail Application involving the following key legal details: | |
| - CASE: Crime No. 238 of 2017 | |
| - BAIL APPLICATION: Bail Application No. 7062 of 2017 | |
| - DISTRICT: Not available | |
| --- | |
| Output: | |
| IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT | |
| ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW | |
| Criminal Misc. Case No. (B) of 2017 | |
| Rajesh Kumar Yadav aged about 35 years son of | |
| Shri Chhedi Lal resident of Village – Khajuri, | |
| Police Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh | |
| .....Applicant | |
| (In Jail from 01.06.2017) | |
| Versus | |
| State of Uttar Pradesh .....Opposite Party | |
| Case Crime No. 238 of 2017 | |
| Under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, | |
| 471, 272, 273 I.P.C. | |
| Sections 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act | |
| Police Station – Lalganj | |
| District – Pratapgarh | |
| Bail application rejected by Additional | |
| Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, on 15.09.2017 | |
| APPLICATION FOR BAIL UNDER SECTION 439 Cr. P.C. | |
| The applicant most respectfully submits as | |
| under:- | |
| For the facts and reasons mentioned in | |
| accompanying affidavit, it is most respectfully | |
| prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be | |
| pleased to grant the bail to the applicant in the | |
| interest of Justice. | |
| Lucknow (Dr. Gyan Singh) | |
| Advocate | |
| Dated : .2017 Counsel for the applicant | |
| Case Crime No. 238 of 2017 | |
| Under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, | |
| 471, 272, 273 I.P.C. | |
| Sections 60, 63 of U.P. Excise Act | |
| Police Station – Lalganj | |
| District – Pratapgarh | |
| Bail application rejected by Additional | |
| Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, on 15.09.2017 | |
| IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT | |
| ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW | |
| Criminal Misc. Case No. (B)of 2017 | |
| Jokhu Jaiswal ...Applicant | |
| (In Jail from 01.06.2017) | |
| Versus | |
| State of Uttar Pradesh ....Opposite Party | |
| AFFIDAVIT | |
| (In support of bail application) | |
| I, Ritesh Kumar Yadav aged about 22 years son | |
| of Shri Rati Ram Yadav Resident of Village – | |
| Asaitha, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, | |
| Education – Literate, Occupation – Business, do | |
| hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under | |
| :- | |
| 1. That the deponent is the pairokar of the | |
| applicant and duly authorized by the | |
| applicant to doing pairavi and files the | |
| aforesaid application before this Hon'ble | |
| Court and as such he is fully conversant | |
| with the facts of the case and deposed as | |
| under. The ID Proof of the deponent is | |
| enclosed and his photograph is affixed on | |
| the affidavit. | |
| 2. That this is the first bail application | |
| before this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail | |
| application pending before this Hon'ble | |
| Court or rejected by this Hon'ble Court. | |
| 3. That brief facts of the case is that a first | |
| information report has been lodged against | |
| the applicant and 2 other persons on | |
| 01.06.2017 by informant namely Shri Ajay | |
| Kumar Singh, Inspector Field Unit, Allahabad | |
| bearing Case Crime No. 238 of 2017 under | |
| Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 741, 272, 273 | |
| I.P.C., 60, 63 U.P. Excise Act at Police | |
| Station – Lalganj, District – Pratapgarh on | |
| false, incorrect and baseless grounds. The | |
| photocopy of the first information report | |
| dated 01.06.2017 is being annexed as | |
| Annexure No. 01 to this application. | |
| 4. That fact of the first information report | |
| dated 01.06.2017 is in nutshell; the | |
| informant along with other police companions | |
| were searching the criminals and illegal | |
| liquor smugglers and they reached Sagra | |
| Sundar Pal within the jurisdiction of the | |
| Police Station – Lalganj, District – | |
| Pratapgarh. | |
| 5. That meanwhile one of police informer | |
| informed them that at Khajuri turn, two | |
| Bolero and one Pickup vehicles are standing | |
| and some persons are also there nearby the | |
| aforesaid vehicles with illegal liquor. On | |
| this information the raiding party reached | |
| Khajuri turn and saw that two Bolero and one | |
| Pickup vehicles there and after seeing the | |
| police personnel’s the persons standing | |
| nearby the vehicles tried to escape but | |
| three persons including the applicant were | |
| arrested by the raiding party at about 03:15 | |
| AM on said date i.e. 01.06.2017. | |
| 6. That it has been further alleged in the | |
| first information report that from the | |
| possession of the applicant one country made | |
| pistol 315 bore and there live cartages of | |
| 315 bore, 10 boxes of illegal liquor total | |
| 450 bottles of 200ML in all boxes, 500 empty | |
| bottles without cap of 200ML, 200 pages | |
| rappers total 9898 rappers, 9500 bottles | |
| caps and 7000 cap washers kept in two bags | |
| and also have 30,000.00 cash was recovered | |
| from him. As per first information report | |
| dated 01.06.2017, the applicant was driving | |
| the Bolero vehicle No. UP 72 W 4410. | |
| 7. That from the possession of the co-accused | |
| Madan Lal Verma, the raiding party found one | |
| country made pistol 315 bore and two live | |
| cartages 315 bore, Rs. 14,000.00 cash, 6 | |
| boxes of illegal liquor total 270 bottles of | |
| 200ML labelled as Dabang Desi Sharab | |
| Masaledar, 400 empty bottles without cap of | |
| 200ML, 10700 holograms in three bundles, one | |
| packet of chemical for making colour and 6 | |
| bundles tape. | |
| 8. That the raiding party from the 3rd accused, | |
| who was driving the Pickup vehicle No. UP 44 | |
| T 9075 recovered the 8300 empty bottles | |
| without cap, one plastic tank of 500 litres | |
| which was filled about 400 litres of illegal | |
| liquor which was dripping from the tap of | |
| the tank and two empty gallons of the 50 | |
| litres. | |
| 9. That it is further stated that above | |
| recovery so far concerned with the applicant | |
| was false, incorrect and baseless and on | |
| basis the first information report was | |
| lodged against the applicant and others, in | |
| the Police Station – Lalganj, District – | |
| Pratapgarh. | |
| 10. That the versions of the first information | |
| report dated 01.06.2017 and same is depends | |
| upon the concocted story as such nothing has | |
| been recovered from the applicant as alleged | |
| against him. Here it relevant to mention | |
| here that the applicant was neither driver | |
| of the alleged vehicle nor knowing the | |
| driving of the four vehicle. | |
| 11. That the real story of the case is that so | |
| far concerned to the applicant is that; the | |
| applicant has no concerned with the said | |
| alleged incident. On 31.05.2017, at marital | |
| house of sister of the applicant was a | |
| function (Bhandara) at Jalesharganj, | |
| Pratapgarh, in which he was present. At that | |
| place cousin brother of the applicant namely | |
| Shiv Nath Yadav, was also there, who is the | |
| owner of the Bolero vehicle No. UP 72 W | |
| 4410. | |
| 12. That after taking dinner (Bhandara) the Shiv | |
| Nath Yadav was also come to house of the | |
| applicant for night stay. The applicant was | |
| unaware about raid, which was conducting by | |
| the raiding party at alleged place. At | |
| 3.00AM of 01.06.2017 the police of concerned | |
| Police Station was come to house of the | |
| applicant and without saying any word, | |
| arrested him but the informant showing in | |
| his first information report that the | |
| applicant was arrested at alleged incident | |
| place when he was sit on driving seat of the | |
| Bolero vehicle No. UP 72 W 4410. The | |
| photo/typed copy of the arresting memo is | |
| being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this | |
| application. | |
| 13. That after concluding the raid, the recovery | |
| memo has been prepared by the concerned | |
| police on 01.06.2017. | |
| 14. That so far concerned to the recovery of the | |
| Rs. 30,000.00 from the applicant, it is | |
| relevant to mention here that the said money | |
| was also taken by the concerned police from | |
| the house of the applicant, when he was | |
| arrested from his house. The said money was | |
| withdrawn by his daughter namely Ranjna | |
| Yadav on 18.05.2017 on request of the | |
| applicant as same was to be given to his | |
| sister in her function but on 30.05.2017, | |
| his sister denied for taking the said money | |
| as there was no need. The photocopy of the | |
| bank statement of the daughter of the | |
| applicant is being annexed as Annexure No. | |
| 03 to this application. | |
| 15. That the manner in which the arrest and the | |
| recovery has been shown from the applicant | |
| is highly improbable against the human | |
| nature as he was arrested from his house, | |
| which is against the fact and circumstances | |
| of the case. | |
| 16. That the applicant has been falsely | |
| implicated in the said case crime by the | |
| concerned Police Station police as the | |
| several cases have been lodged against the | |
| applicant. | |
| 17. That the cases lodged against the applicant, | |
| details & status of the same are as under : | |
| 1. Case Crime No. 218 of 2000 under Sections | |
| 18/20 N.D.P.S. Act, in which the applicant | |
| has been acquitted by the A.D.J, | |
| Pratapgarh on 07.07.2006. | |
| 2. Case Crime No. 219 of 2000 under Sections | |
| 60 Excise Act, which is still pending | |
| before the court concerned. | |
| 3. Case Crime No. 42 of 2003 under Sections | |
| 41, 411 I.P.C., which is still pending | |
| before the court concerned. | |
| 4. Case Crime No. 40 of 2003 under Sections | |
| 60 Excise Act, which is still pending | |
| before the court concerned. | |
| 5. Case Crime No. 46 of 2003 under Sections | |
| 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act, which is still | |
| pending before the court concerned. | |
| 6. Case Crime No. 58 of 2003 under Sections | |
| 392 I.P.C.. This case was ended at stage | |
| of investigation. | |
| 7. Case Crime No. 234 of 2007 under Sections | |
| 2/3 Gunda Act. | |
| 8. Case Crime No. 502 of 2009 under Sections | |
| 272 I.P.C. and 60 Excise Act, which is | |
| still pending before the court concerned. | |
| 9. Case Crime No. 89 of 2010 under Sections | |
| 110G Cr.P.C.. | |
| 10.Case Crime No. 238 of 2017 under Sections | |
| 419, 420, 467, 468, 741, 272, 273 I.P.C., | |
| 60, 63 U.P. Excise Act, which is still | |
| pending before the court concerned. | |
| 11.Case Crime No. 239 of 2017 under Sections | |
| 3/25 Arms Act, which is still pending | |
| before the court concerned and he is on | |
| bail. | |
| 18. That since the applicant has not committed | |
| any offence as alleged but he has been | |
| falsely implicated and has no any | |
| involvement in the said case as alleged in | |
| first information report, the applicant has | |
| not committed any offence. | |
| 19. That the applicant moved bail application | |
| bearing No. 1358 of 2017 before Additional | |
| Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, and his bail | |
| application has been rejected by the court | |
| concerned on 15.09.2017. The copy of the | |
| order dated 15.09.2017 passed by court | |
| concerned is being annexed as Annexure No. | |
| 05 to this application. | |
| 20. That the co-accused of the case crime 238 of | |
| 2017, Mandan Lal Verma moved a bail | |
| application No. 5937 of 2017 before this | |
| Hon'ble Court and he has been released on | |
| bail vide order dated 24.08.2017 passed by | |
| this Hon'ble Court. Another accused namely | |
| Akbar Ali moved bail application No. 7062 of | |
| 2017 and he has been also released on bail | |
| by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated | |
| 28.08.2017. | |
| 21. That the applicant in jail since 01.06.2017 | |
| without committing any offense as alleged | |
| against the applicant with regard to case | |
| crime No. 238 of 2017. | |
| 22. That there is no chance of the applicant | |
| absconding or tempering with the prosecution | |
| witnesses. | |
| 23. That the applicant is ready to furnished the | |
| security and bond and also undertake that he | |
| will be never misused liberty of bail. | |
| 24. That in view of the above, it would be | |
| expedient and necessary in the interest of | |
| justice that the applicant be enlarged on | |
| bail during pendency of case. | |
| Lucknow | |
| Date : .2017 Deponent | |
| VERIFICATION | |
| I, the deponent, do hereby verify that | |
| the contents of para of the | |
| accompanying affidavit are true to my own | |
| knowledge and those of para | |
| are believed to true based on records and | |
| paragraph are true to legal | |
| advice. No part of its is false and nothing | |
| material has been concealed. So, help me “GOD”. | |
| Lucknow | |
| Dated: .2017 Deponent | |
| I, do hereby declare that the person | |
| making this affidavit and alleging himself to be | |
| the deponent is known to me from the perusal of | |
| papers and I am satisfied that he is the same | |
| person. | |
| Advocate | |
| Solemnly affirmed before me on | |
| at A.M./P.M. by the deponent, above | |
| named, who has been identified by Sri Dr. Gyan | |
| Sing, Advocate, High Court, Lucknow, Bench, | |
| Lucknow. Enrolment No. 11667 of 2010 and resident | |
| of 34, Pipra Ghat, Dilkusha Cantt, Lucknow, | |
| Mobile No. 9452226667. | |
| I, have satisfied myself by examining the | |
| deponent that she understands the contents of | |
| this affidavit, which have been read over and | |
| explained by me. | |
| OATH COMMISSIONER | |
| IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT | |
| ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW | |
| Criminal Misc. Case No. (B)of 2017 | |
| Jokhu Jaiswal ...Applicant | |
| (In Jail from 01.06.2017) | |
| Versus | |
| State of Uttar Pradesh ....Opposite Party | |
| INDEX | |
| Sr.No Particulars Page No. | |
| 1. Application for bail under | |
| section 439 Cr.P.C. | |
| 2. Affidavit in support of | |
| application | |
| 3. Annexure No. 1 | |
| The photocopy of the first | |
| information report dated | |
| 01.06.2017 | |
| 4. Annexure No. 2 | |
| The photo/typed copy of the | |
| arresting memo | |
| 5. Annexure No. 3 | |
| The photocopy of the bank | |
| statement of the daughter of the | |
| applicant | |
| 6. Memo | |
| Lucknow (Dr. Gyan Singh) | |
| Advocate | |
| Dated : .2017 Counsel for the applicant | |
| IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, | |
| LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW | |
| Criminal Misc. Case No. (B)of 2017 | |
| Rajesh Kumar Yadav Versus State of U. P. | |
| Type copy of the Annexure No. | |
| fxj¶rkjh eseks | |
| eq0v0la0 238@17 /kkjk | |
| 419@420@467@468@272@273 vkbZ0ih0lh0 o | |
| 60@63 vfr0 vf/k0 cuke jkT; | |
| 239@17 /kkjk3@25 vkElZ ,DV cuke jkts”k ;kno | |
| 240@17 /kkjk 3@25 vkElZ ,DV cuke enu yky oekZ | |
| Fkkuk ykyxat tuin izrkix< | |
| vfHk;qDr dk uke firk dk uke | |
| fuokl LFkku vfHk;qDrksa dk uke ikr ;qDr ij | |
| ftyk | |
| fxj¶rkjh dk LFkku [kqtjh eksM fnukad 01-06- | |
| 2017 le; 3-15,,e | |
| lk{kh dk uke & iwjk irk ftlds le{k fxj¶rkjh dh x;h | |
| x;h o mlds gLrk{kj | |
| fxj¶rkjh dk laf{kIr vk/kkj & voS/k “kjkc o voS/k | |
| “kL= cjken gksukA | |
| g0 viBuh; | |
| vfHk;qDr ds gLrk{kj fxj¶rkj djus okys | |
| vf/kdkjh | |
| jkts”k ;kno dk uke in o | |
| gLrk{kj | |
| vdcj vyh | |
| enu yky oekZ | |
| uke vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh ftlds }kjk fxj¶rkj O;fDr ds | |
| lacaf/k;ksa dks lwpuk nh x;h ds gLrk{kj | |
| g0 viBuh; | |
| fj”rsnkj@laca/kh vFkok odhy dk uke irk iwjk fooj.k | |
| %& | |
| ftls lwpuk nh x;h ,oa muds gLrk{kj | |
| 1-Jh Nsnh yky iq= Lo0 jkelqr fuoklh [ktqjh] ih,l | |
| ykyxat] ftyk izrkix< AvfHk;qDr jkts”k dqekj ds | |
| firkA | |
| 2-v”kQkd iq= djkermYyk fuoklh rkt[kkuiqj ih,l | |
| dksrokyh uxj] lqYrkuiqj 8112422082 AvfHk0 | |
| v”kQkd ds fe=A | |
| 3-jksfgr oekZ iq= clar yky oekZ fu0 c.Mk[kqVkj] | |
| ih,l vUrq] izrkix< eks0 ua0 9554900622 | |
| AvfHk;qDr enu dk HkkbZA | |
| vfHk;qDr.k dk uke irk | |
| 1- jkts”k dqekj ;kno iq= Jh Nsnh yky ;kno fuoklh | |
| [ktqjh ih,l ykyxat izrkix< | |
| 2- enu yky oekZ iq= clar yky oekZ fuoklh | |
| c.Mk[kqVkj] ih,l vUrq ftyk izrkix< | |
| 3- vdcj vyh iq= bLyke fuoklh rktiqj] ih,l dksrokyh | |
| uxj] lqYrkuiqj | |