Jitendra (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P.

Jitendra (In Jail) vs State of U.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 24, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/490955

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/490955
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: K.D. Shahi, J.
Decided On: Feb 24, 1999
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2754 of 1999
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 363, 366 and 376

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jitendra (In Jail)

Advocate V.D. Ojha, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P.

Advocate Govt. Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 363, 366 and 376
Reported In: 2000CriLJ3087

Excerpt

.....in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - had the police not taken care of it, everybody could have blamed the police like anything and all the sections of society including mahila manch, mahila andolan and human rights commission would have come on the roads with slogans 'look here in a rape case like it no action is being taken'.but everybody will sleep silent if there is false implication and a person is confined to jail for months together. , police station ratanpuri, district muzaffarnagar is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned......she return three months imprisonment? if not, she should also suffer the consequences of false implication. the superintendent of police, muzaffarnagar is hereby directed to look into the matter to get a case registered against her and to take necessary action as permissible under law so that as the sanctity virginity of a woman may be preserved but side by side the life and liberty of a male should also may remain preserved. superintendent of police, muzaffarnagar is further directed to make compliance of this order and to report within a period of three months from today. at any rate although neither victim nor the police and nor this court can return three months of applicant jitendra for which he remained in custody due to false f.i.r.3. applicant jitendra involved in case crime no. 88 of 1998, under sections 363, 366, 376 i.p.c., police station ratanpuri, district muzaffarnagar is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.4. registry is directed to send a copy of this order to superintendent of police muzaffarnagar for compliance.5. let a copy be issued to the applicant on payment of usual charges today.

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.D. Shahi, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The rape is a very serious crime. It not only demolishes the moral and physical structure of the prosecutrix but also demolishes the very existence of virginity of a lady; but false implication is rather more dangerous than it. In this case when the F.I.R. was lodged, it was specifically alleged that Jitendra and one more boy pounced over the prosecutrix and overpowered her as a lion, tied her mouth, physically lifted and took her in sugar cane crop and committed rape. The victim became unconscious. When she regained conscious next day instead of sugar cane crop, she was found in a room. The allegations are very serious. Had the police not taken care of it, everybody could have blamed the police like anything and all the sections of Society including Mahila Manch, Mahila Andolan and Human Rights Commission would have come on the roads with slogans 'look here in a rape case like it no action is being taken'. But everybody will sleep silent if there is false implication and a person is confined to jail for months together. In this case the victim filed an affidavit and she alleged that she has falsely implicated accused Jitendra. Will she return three months imprisonment? If not, she should also suffer the consequences of false implication. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar is hereby directed to look into the matter to get a case registered against her and to take necessary action as permissible under law so that as the sanctity virginity of a woman may be preserved but side by side the life and liberty of a male should also may remain preserved. Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar is further directed to make compliance of this order and to report within a period of three months from today. At any rate although neither victim nor the police and nor this Court can return three months of applicant Jitendra for which he remained in custody due to false F.I.R.

3. Applicant Jitendra involved in case crime No. 88 of 1998, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., police station Ratanpuri, District Muzaffarnagar is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned.

4. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to Superintendent of Police Muzaffarnagar for compliance.

5. Let a copy be issued to the applicant on payment of usual charges today.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1999 Same Parties Jitendra (In Jail) vs State of U.P. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.D. Shahi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 363, 366 and 376

Criminal