Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2430

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Krishan Pahal, J.
Smt Veerbala Yadav - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. - Opposite Party
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. - 43186 of 2024
Decided On : 13-12-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Amarjeet Choudhary, Atharva Dixit
For the Opposite Party : G.A., Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sai Girdhar

The court held that bail should not be granted where the evidence against the applicant, though circumstantial, warrants further investigation and lacks conclusive disproof.

Headnote:(A) B.N.S. Act, 2023 - Sections 103(1), 238

(B), 324(6), 3(5), 127(6) - Bail application - The applicant is accused in a murder case involving an FIR filed after a delay of more than one day. The prosecution's evidence, including witness testimonies and CCTV footage, was contested as unreliable. Court found insufficient grounds for bail based on the evidence presented. (Paras 6, 18, 26)

(B) Delay in FIR - Delay over one day in filing the FIR without valid explanation, which raised doubts regarding the prosecution's case. (Paras 7, 9)

(C) Evidence evaluation - The Court emphasized the need for reliable evidence and highlighted the insufficient linkage of the applicant to the crime based on current evidence. (Paras 10, 11, 21)

Findings of Court:
The application for bail was rejected as the evidence against the applicant was not conclusively disproven, leading to a presumption of involvement.

Issues: The primary issues discussed included the reliability of witness statements, delays in filing the FIR, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence linking the applicant to the crime.

Ratio Decidendi: The court stated that without clear evidence disproving the prosecution's claims, bail could not be granted. The presumption of innocence must be balanced against the seriousness of the allegations.

Result: The bail application is rejected.

Table of Content
1. accident or murder questioned (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. delay in fir raises doubts (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. insufficient evidence against applicant (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. witness reliability questioned (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. strong evidence against applicant (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. weakness in prosecution's evidence (Para 26)
7. bail application rejected (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 289 of 2024, U/S 103(1), 238(B), 324(6), 3(5), 127(6) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Mainather, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The FIR was instituted against unknown persons by the informant stating that his father had left his house on 16.8.2024 at about 8.00 pm on his motorcycle no. UP 21 BL 1907 and the informant was informed in the night of 17.8.2024 at 00.30 am that he had met with an accident and his dead body is lying at District Hospital.

5. On receiving the said information, the informant alongwith his family members rushed to the hospital and found the dead body of his father there and observed that he had certain marks on his neck and his tongue was protruding out and he had also observed that both his hands were also supposedly tied with something and there was also a mark of injury on his head, as such, he had apprehension in his mind that some unknown persons have committed his murder and in order to conceal the said dead body, had dumped it near NH-24 Chandausi cut. He has categorically stated in the FIR that his father has not met with any accident but he has been murdered.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

6. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize her. She is a widow and has nothing to do with the said offence.

7. The FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

8. The inquest proceedings and the post-mortem examination of the deceased were conducted on 17.8.2024 itself and the FIR has been subsequently instituted. Even that FIR does not mention the name of the applicant therein.

9. Subsequently, certain evidence has been garnered by the investigating officer, as he has found in CCTV footage that one i- 10 Car bearing no. UP 16 DA 6222 was seen in it and two persons were seen throwing the said dead body of the deceased near the Highway.

10. Further delving into the identity of the said vehicle, it was found that the owner of the said vehicle was one Haroon Iqbal and his statement was taken and he has categorically stated that he did not use the said vehicle, as he had already sold the same to Manoj, who happens to be a co-accused person, although the transfer papers were not already completed.

11. Even then the statement of Haroon Iqbal or the CCTV footage does not implicate the applicant, as he is not seen in the said i-10 car at the time of dumping. Only two persons (implied as male persons mentioned as Aadmi) were found dumping the said dead body. On the information of a squealer, the said car was recovered and from the said i-10 car no. UP 16 DA 6222, the applicant alongwith co-accused persons Manoj and Anil was arrested.

12. It is a clear cut case of false implication and subsequently, three relatives of the informant have been roped as witnesses. The star witness is one Pushpendra, whose statement was recorded belatedly i.e on 27.8.2024, who had seen the deceased person going on a motorcycle and he has mentioned that he had seen a woman as a pillion rider on the