Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Krishan Pahal
Veerbala Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| 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.
The court held that bail should not be granted where the evidence against the applicant, though circumstantial, warrants further investigation and lacks conclusive disproof.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception; the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt for bail denial.
The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for abetment of suicide; clear evidence of incitement is required.
The court denied bail based on the circumstances of the murder and the applicant's insufficient evidence to prove non-involvement.
Bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception; presumption of innocence must be upheld until guilt is proven.
The court emphasized that bail should not be granted if there is a strong likelihood of witness tampering and the accused is charged with a serious offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
