Allowed

Balkrishna @ Lala Pal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2023BAIL/55755/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under sections 302, 394, 411, 34 IPC, the High Court allowed the applicant's bail. The court noted the absence of the applicant, appointed an amicus curiae, and found the arguments regarding lack of direct evidence and incomplete chain of incrimination satisfactory.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.

Balkrishna @ Lala Pal Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180052

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55755 of 2022 Applicant :- Balkrishna @ Lala Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Chandra Yadav,Sanatan Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

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.

¶6

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. The Court has appointed Shri Anish Kumar Singh, learned counsel as amicus curiae on behalf of the applicant and serve to cause of justice.

¶7

By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 322 of 2022 at Police Station- Koraon, DistrictPrayagraj, under Sections 302, 394, 411, 34 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 21.08.2022.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 10.10.2022.

¶9

The following arguments made by Shri Anish Kumar Singh, learned counsel as amicus curiae on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned AGA-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶10

The applicant was not named in the FIR.

¶11

There is no direct evidence against the applicant.

¶12

This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The chain of incriminating circumstances against the applicant is not complete.

¶13

The applicant was not last seen in the company of the deceased at a time proximate to the death of the latter.

¶14

The danda was planted on the applicant to burnish the credentials of the police authorities. There is no independent witness to the recovery.

¶15

The items recovered from the applicant cannot be linked with the offence.

¶16

The stolen jewellery items were recovered from the other co-accused persons.

¶17

There is no independent witness to the recovery.

¶18

Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶19

The applicant has explained his criminal history. Learned AGA contends that the applicant has a criminal history of a case under the Excise Act. Rejoining this issue, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is in jail. He does not have an effective pairokar. Hence, details of the case could not be obtained and stated in the bail application. However, relying on the records available with the learned AGA and the instructions received from his client, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely nominated in the said case. The said case does not depict commission of heinous crime and have no bearing on the instant bail application.

¶20

The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to join the trial 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- Balkrishna @ Lala Pal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each

¶23

in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

The Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Shri Anish Kumar Singh(A/A 0870/2012), En. No. 6401/2003, Amicus Curiae. High Court Legal Services Authority may kindly make the fee payment to Shri Anish Kumar Singh, Advocate on the approved remuneration who represented the applicant as Amicus Curiae before this Court.

¶27

Order Date :- 18.9.2023 Vandit

¶28

Digitally signed by :- VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Balkrishna @ Lala Pal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balkrishna @ Lala 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Ansar Ali Vs State of U.P.

Beeru Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jalawati Vs State of U.P. and Another