Veeru Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64401

Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2382 of 2025

Applicant :- Veeru Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Yadav,Babu Ram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard leaned counsel for the applicant-accused, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant-accused in Case Crime No. 135 of 2023, under Section 302/34 IPC, P.S.- Khanpur, District- Ghazipur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant-accused on bail.

¶8

The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2024, which is reproduced as under :-

¶9

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

¶10

2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 135 of 2023, under Section 302/34 IPC, P.S. Khanpur District Ghazipur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶11

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is not named in the first information report. The informant has lodged the first information report against unknown persons on 29.9.2023, stating therein that his son left the home for going to village Ishopur and some unknown persons have committed his murder by firing bullets. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of the statements of Govind Yadav and Gama Bind. The allegation that the applicant was having illicit relations with the wife of the deceased, is wholly false. Similarly the recovery of a country made pistol shown from the applicant, is also not supported by any evidence. Co-accused Govind Yadav and Gama Bind have already been granted bail by this court and by a Coordinate Bench of this court. Lastly, it was submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 29.09.2023, having no previous criminal history, and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in trial.

¶12

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant was having illicit relations with the wife of the deceased. There is evidence that the applicant was in touch with the wife of the deceased through mobile phone and chatting. Applicant has motive to commit murder of deceased. Country made pistol used in commission of the murder of the deceased, was recovered at the instance of the applicant. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts, the applicant cannot claim parity with co-accused persons, who have been granted bail, as they have no motive to commit murder of the deceased.

¶13

5. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations, gravity of the offence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, no case for bail is made out.

¶14

6. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed on behalf of the applicant - Veeru Yadav is hereby rejected ."

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that there is no eye-witness of the alleged incident. In the First Information Report, it was alleged that on 29.09.2023, the deceased has left home for going to Village Ishopur and later on, his murder was committed by firing bullets. The allegation applicant has fired bullet upon the deceased is wholly false. Similarly, there is no evidence to support the prosecution case that applicant was having illicit relations with the wife of deceased. It is further submitted that after rejection of first bail application of applicant, co-accused Kanchan Bharti, who is wife of deceased, has been granted bail by this Court. Two accused persons are already on bail. There is no independent witness of alleged recovery of country-made pistol shown from the applicant. It was submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. Further, the applicant is in jail since 29.09.2023 and trial of the case would take sufficient long time. It was stated that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application and submitted that applicant was having illicit relations with the wife of deceased and he was continuously in touch with the wife of deceased. The pistol used in the incident has also been recovered at the instance of applicant. It was submitted that in view of the facts of the matter, the case of the applicant is distinguished from co-accused persons, who have been granted bail.

¶17

In the instant matter, role of firing at the deceased has been

¶18

assigned to the applicant. As per prosecution version, the applicant was having illicit relations with the wife of deceased and he was continuously in touch with her. The pistol used in the incident has also been recovered at instance of the applicant. As per prosecution version, the applicant has fired bullet at the deceased. It is correct that the applicant is in jail since 29.09.2023 but mere period of detention cannot be a ground to allow the bail ignoring the gravity of the offence.

¶19

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts, without expressing any opinion on merits, no case for grant of bail is made out.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant second bail application filed on behalf of applicant- Veeru Yadav is hereby rejected.

¶21

Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Rama Kant

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Veeru Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeru Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases