# Smt. Veerbala Yadav v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 366
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43186 of 2024
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-veerbala-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-54531
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 - Sections103(1), 238(B), 324(6),
3(5)
&
127(6)
-
Bharatiya
Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 - Section 119 - FIR
lodged
by
informant
and
had
apprehension that some unknown persons
have committed murder of his father.
(Para 4)

Contention by accused that FIR was
delayed by more than one day, no
explanation
given
-
After
inquest
proceedings
and
post-mortem
examination
of
deceased,
FIR
was
instituted
-
Her
name
was
not
mentioned in FIR - St.ment of owner of
offending car or CCTV footage does not
implicate applicant, as she was not seen
in car at time of dumping of dead body
of
deceased
-
On
information
of
squealer,
applicant
along
with
coaccused persons arrested - St.ment of
star witness was recorded belatedly,
who had seen deceased person going on
motorcycle and mentioned that woman
as pillion rider on motorcycle - No test
identification parade of applicant. (Para
7, 8, 11, 12, 13)

St. contended that complicity of applicant
was established by two star witnesses,
who have seen applicant and deceased
person and two accused persons going in
car, said witnesses are not interested
witnesses,
post-mortem
report
also
nullifies theory of accident - St.ment of
one person was recorded by IO, who St.d
on date of incidence, deceased asked his
mobile for making phone call, on call
female person was talking to deceased -
Said number was of applicant and she had
committed offence in collusion with coaccused persons. (Para 19, 20, 21, 24)

Held, recovery memo of car and other
documents from possession of applicant
and co-accused persons was clinching
evidence against them, declined to release
applicant on bail. (Para 25)

Bail application rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 12 ILRA 366
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43186 of
2024

Smt. Veerbala Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Amarjeet Choudhary, Atharva Dixit

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sai Girdhar

Criminal Law - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 - Sections103(1), 238(B), 324(6),
3(5)
&
127(6)
-
Bharatiya
Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 - Section 119 - FIR
lodged
by
informant
and
had
apprehension that some unknown persons
have committed murder of his father.
(Para 4)

Contention by accused that FIR was
delayed by more than one day, no
explanation
given
-
After
inquest
proceedings
and
post-mortem
examination
of
deceased,
FIR
was
instituted
-
Her
name
was
not
mentioned in FIR - St.ment of owner of
offending car or CCTV footage does not
implicate applicant, as she was not seen
in car at time of dumping of dead body
of
deceased
-
On
information
of
squealer,
applicant
along
with
coaccused persons arrested - St.ment of
star witness was recorded belatedly,
who had seen deceased person going on
motorcycle and mentioned that woman
as pillion rider on motorcycle - No test
identification parade of applicant. (Para
7, 8, 11, 12, 13)

St. contended that complicity of applicant
was established by two star witnesses,
who have seen applicant and deceased
person and two accused persons going in
car, said witnesses are not interested
witnesses,
post-mortem
report
also
nullifies theory of accident - St.ment of
one person was recorded by IO, who St.d
on date of incidence, deceased asked his
mobile for making phone call, on call
female person was talking to deceased -
Said number was of applicant and she had
committed offence in collusion with coaccused persons. (Para 19, 20, 21, 24)

Held, recovery memo of car and other
documents from possession of applicant
and co-accused persons was clinching
evidence against them, declined to release
applicant on bail. (Para 25)

Bail application rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vinod Kumar Vs St. of Pun. 2015 (3) SCC 220

2. Hussain & anr. Vs U.O.I.(2017) 5 SCC 702

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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.
12 All. Smt. Veerbala Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
367

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 coaccused 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 said
motorcycle.
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. There is no identification of the
applicant being seen as a pillion rider of the
said motorcycle, as it is vaguely been stated
that the deceased was driving the said
motorcycle alongwith a woman, as such,
there being no test identification parade of
the applicant, it is a clear cut case of false
implication.

14. The statement of two more
witnesses Arun Kumar and Yogesh has
been recorded by the investigating officer
on 28.8.2024, who are stated to have seen
the applicant and the two other coaccused persons Manoj and Anil in the
said i-10 car.

15. The said Yogesh has been stated to
be panch witness at the time of the
recording of the statement, as such, his
statement
cannot
be
relied.
As
the
statement of both these witnesses have
been recorded belatedly after 10 days of the
institution of the FIR, the witnesses are
interested ones, as they are the relatives of
the informant, which is an admitted fact.

16. The said witness Pushpendra has
categorically stated that he had identified
the accused persons only after seeing in
the newspaper, as such, the said averment
cannot be taken into consideration. The
said evidence taken by the prosecution is
not palatable, as such, the applicant being
a lady, is entitled for bail. There is no
motive for her to commit the said
offence.

17. The applicant is languishing in jail
since 26.8.2024 having no criminal history
and in case, the applicant is released on
bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

18. The bail application has been
opposed on the ground that there is cogent
and
clinching
evidence
against
the
applicant.

19. Learned counsel for the informant
has stated that the delay in institution of the
FIR is but natural, as the informant did not
want to falsely implicate any innocent
person. He had no first hand knowledge of
the offence being committed by the
applicant, but gradually, as the statement of
the witnesses were recorded by the
investigating officer, the complicity of the
applicant is established, especially by the
two star witnesses namely, Arun Kumar
and Yogesh, who have categorically seen
the applicant and the deceased person and
two accused persons going in the said i-10
car.

20. The said witnesses are not
interested witnesses. There is a vast
difference between the witnesses being
relative witnesses and interested witnesses.
The defence has failed to establish as to
what interest the said witnesses carried to
falsely implicate the applicant.

21. The modus operandi of the
applicant
is
but
evident
from
the
circumstances itself, whereby the case of
homicide is tried to be shown as accident,
as the mobile was found broken but the
motorcycle escaped any injury, whatsoever,
coupled by the fact that the post-mortem
report also nullifies the theory of the
accident.

22. There are three phones being used
by the applicant and the CDR of only one
phone
has
been
collected
by
the
investigating officer, as such, the informant
had given an application to S.S.P.,
Moradabad, on 7.11.2024 to establish the
12 All. Smt. Veerbala Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
369
C.D.Rs. and details of the two other
suspected numbers of the applicant i.e.
9719191011 and 8868801979. Further
investigation is being carried on regarding
the two mobile numbers of the applicant.

23. Learned counsel has brought
forward two documents, which are already
on record as Annexure-1, which indicates
that the applicant was in constant touch
with the co-accused person Manoj Kumar
and one other suspected member Ram
Kumar Singh.

24. The statement of one Sunil
Karnwal
was
also
recorded
by
the
investigating officer, who stated that on
16.8.2024 at about 7.00 pm, the deceased
person had asked him to give his mobile to
him, as he had to make a phone call and he
called from his mobile no. 9411432500 to
one 9719191011 and a female person was
talking to the deceased person from the
other side. The said number 9719191011 is
that of the applicant and it was she, who
had lured the deceased person and had got
the offence committed in collusion with the
co-accused persons Manoj and Anil.

25. Learned counsel has placed reliance
on the details of the statements of the said
witnesses coupled by the recovery memo of
the said car from which one aadhar card, one
credit card and a blank cheque were
recovered from the possession of the
applicant and the two other co-accused
persons. The said recovery has been made on
26.8.2024, as such, the illustration A of
Section 119 of B.S.A. is applicable to the
instant case, as the said recovery is in close
proximity of the offence committed. The said
recovery has been videographed, as such, it is
the clinching evidence against the applicant.
Had it been planted, the videography would
not have been conducted.

ARGUMENTS IN REBUTTAL ON
BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

26. The said statement of Sunil
Karnwal is farce, as the broken mobile of
the deceased was found and if he carried a
mobile, why would he use the mobile of the
said witness.

CONCLUSION:

27. After hearing the parties and
taking
into
consideration
the
rival
submissions,
the
evidence
and
the
circumstantial evidence tendered at Bar and
the fact that it has not been established as to
why would the investigating officer or the
witnesses falsely implicate the applicant, I
do not find it a fit case for bail. Without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, this Court is not inclined to release
the applicant on bail.

28.
The
bail
application
is,
accordingly, rejected.

29. However, it is directed that the
aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, in view
of the principle laid down in the recent
judgements of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of
Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain
and Another vs. Union of India (2017)
5 SCC 702, if there is no legal
impediment.

30.
It
is
clarified
that
the
observations made herein are limited to
the facts brought in by the parties
pertaining
to
the
disposal
of
bail
application and the said observations
shall have no bearing on the merits of the
case during trial.
----------
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 12 ILRA 370
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 53254 of
2023

Pushpendra Giri ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Brij Raj Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Geetam Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 323 & 307/34 - Arms
Act, 1959 - Prayer to release on bail
- Applicant is in jail for more than
two years and he has no criminal
history and languishing in jail since
14.12.2022 - Considering the facts
and circumstances of instant case,
nature
of
offence,
evidence,
complicity of accused and relying on
judgment of R.D. Upadhyay (infra), in
which Apex Court held that those
undertrials who are facing trial for
attempt to murder for more than 2
years, are directed to be released on
bail
forthwith
to
satisfaction
of
respective
trial
courts
-
Thus,
applicant entitled to bail, directions
accordingly. (Para 6, 8)

Bail application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

R.D. Upadhyay Vs St. of A.P. & ors., 1996 (3)
SCC 422

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

2. The present Bail Application has
been filed with the prayer to grant bail to
the applicant - Pushpendra Giri, in Case
Crime No. 530 of 2022, under sections
323,307/34 I.P.C. and Section 3/25/27
Arms Act, Police Station Soron, District
Kasganj.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
has relied upon the judgment passed by
Apex Court in R.D. Upadhyay Vs. State of
A.P. and others, 1996 (3) SCC 422. As per
learned counsel for the applicant the
applicant is aged about 59 years.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the applicant that the trial is not
proceedings in the matter and the applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail in view of
the judgment passed by the Apex Court in
R.D. Upadhyaym (supra).

5. Learned A.G.A. does not dispute
the factual matrix of the case as well as the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
R.D. Upadhyay (supra).

6. It is to be seen that the applicant is
in jail for more than two years. The
applicant has no criminal history and is
languishing in jail since 14.12.2022.

7. The Apex Court in the case of R.D.
Upadhyay (supra) has directed release on
bail of the accused person who are charged
with cheating after detention of more than
one year. In this respect, paragraph 3 of the
aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder:-

"3. So far as the cases regarding
attempt of murder are concerned, we direct