Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2517 (ALL)

Veerbala Yadav v. State of U. P.

2024-12-13

KRISHAN PAHAL

body2024
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. 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 said motorcycle. 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. 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 co-accused 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. 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 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 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.