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