Allowed

Brijesh Kumar Pal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2023BAIL/39951/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application for bail in a rape and assault case. Equipped with amicus curiae assistance due to strike paralysis, the judge granted release citing fatal flaws in prosecution evidence and lack of victim cooperation while impressing DLSA to facilitate bond execution.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to an undertaking not to tamper with evidence and to appear before the trial court.

Brijesh Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:177476

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39951 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Babu Mishra,Ravindra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Matter is called out. None appears for the applicant to press the bail application. The names of the learned counsel for the applicant is shown in the cause list.

¶7

Learned counsel at the Bar has been requested to assist the Court in the matter. This Court in the light of the holding in Maneesh Pathak vs. State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18536 of 2020 is not dismissing the case for non prosecution. Learned members at the Bar have volunteered to assist the Court pro bono in the highest tradition of the profession. The Court has appointed learned counsel as amicus curiae.

¶8

By means of the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 138 of 2023 at Police Station- Charwa, District- Kaushambi under Sections 354, 504, 506, 376 (2) (N) IPC. The applicant is in jail since 16.07.2023.

¶9

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 08.08.2023.

¶10

The following arguments made by learned counsel as

¶11

amicus curiae for the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶12

Delay in lodgement of the F.I.R. in the facts and circumstances of this case is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶13

The victim and the applicant were in a relationship. The F.I.R. was got lodged by the husband of the victim after their relationship was exposed.

¶14

The victim in her statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. had admitted to physical relationship with the applicant for one year. She had never raised an alarm nor did she get the F.I.R. registered. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a consenting party.

¶15

False and aggravated allegations have been made by the victim belatedly in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the behest of her husband only to save the failing prosecution case and to deflect attention from her conduct.

¶16

Material contradictions in the F.I.R. as well as the statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. discredit the prosecution case.

¶17

Medical evidence to corroborate commission of rape or forceful assault by the applicant with the victim has not been produced by the prosecution.

¶18

The records available with the learned A.G.A. disclose

¶19

that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶20

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶21

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant- Brijesh Kumar Pal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶23

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶24

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶25

The Court has been informed that the lawyers in districtKaushambi are striking work. Liberty of citizens is too sacrosanct and cannot be held to ransom by striking lawyers.

¶26

The District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Kaushambi shall ensure that appropriate legal aid is made

¶27

available to the applicant for purposes of submitting sureties and completion of other formalities for being set forth at liberty.

¶28

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Kaushambi for onward communication to the applicant who is in jail, and for assisting the applicant in the manner stated above.

¶29

Order Date :- 13.9.2023 Jaswant

¶30

Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brijesh Kumar Pal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar Pal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pintu Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajinder Saini Vs State of U.P.

Nanhey @ Amit Vs State of U.P.

Varasat Ali Vs State of U.P.

Sachin @ Surendra Vs State of U.P.

Vijaymal Vs State of U.P.