IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA; LD. SPECIAL JUDGE; NDPS; (NE); ASJ, KARKARDOOMA; DELHI.

BAIL APPLICATION NO.              OF 2016.

IN THE MATTER OF: -

________________

______________________,

Delhi.                                                                               : APPLICANT

                                                  VERSUS

________________                                                  : RESPONDENT

                                                                                                          FIR No. _______

                                                            U/S: 302 IPC

                                                                                                P.S.: _____________

Accused in J.C. Since: ______________

BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT _______ S/O SH. _______ IN F.I.R No.-________ UNDER SECTION 302 I.P.C. REGISTERED WITH POLICE STATION _______________, DELHI.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1.         That the applicant/accused is a peace loving citizen of India and he is an honest young boy having deep roots in the society.

2.        That the applicant is a young boy who has been deliberately and falsely and out of vengeance implicated in the captioned case without his fault.

3.        That the applicant / accused is 22 years old young boy who is studying.

4.        The applicant has been falsely implicated by the applicant at the instance of the complainant who is wife of the deceased and real aunty of the applicant.

5.        That the applicant is in judicial custody since first day of the incident and the police has not taken police custody of the applicant so it is very clear that the applicant is not required for further investigation.

6.        That the applicant has been arrested by the police in this case from the GTB Hospital where he has accompanied with his real uncle / deceased.

7.         That the applicant / accused did not commit any crime. It is sheer out of vengeance by the aunty of the deceased who has vendetta with the applicant and prevailed to make false statement regarding the applicant / accused has also been falsely implicated in the present case.

8.        That there is not even an iota of evidence collected by the investigating officer that the Applicant/Accused murder of the deceased. Even prima facie there is nothing to show commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. 

9.        That the accused has been falsely implicated in the above noted case and the allegations made therein are false, fabricated, malafide and unfounded and shall have no legs to stand at the time of completion of trial as the accused /applicant is an innocent person and has not committed any offence whatsoever.

10.      That applicant is filing present bail application before this Hon’ble Court on the following amongst other grounds which are taken without prejudice to each other:-

11.       There is no evidence on record which can be tampered by the accused in any manner.

12.       There is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of the complainant is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration.

13.       That the accused is always available to appear himself to the custody of the court at any point of time. That, it is the basic criminal jurisprudence that the accused is considered innocent until held guilty.

14.       That it may not be out of context to point out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 has again upheld the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence “bail and not jail” and has observed that time and again is has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

15.       In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308, Hon’ble Supreme Court opined:

“That the basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement n bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.

It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner in this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavorable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station at Baren once every fortnight.”

16.       That in the case of Siddharam Satlingoppa Meheto Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1SCC 694 Hon’ble Court observed

“Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.”

17.       That the trial of the case will take a long time to conclude and no useful purpose will be solved by keeping the applicant / accused in custody.

18.      That there is no good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet framing of charges and statement of prosecutrix. That Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784, has stated that:-

“in deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail.”

19.       That the grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.

20.      That accused / applicant is a young boy and has got clean antecedents and also has got no influence over the prosecution witnesses and there is no likelihood of tempering with the same as the prosecution.

21.       That as per the jurisprudence of bail, aims is to be kept for achieving a balance between personal liberty and social security, however trial period of the accused should be avoided in detention. The first time offender having no criminal antecedence is to be considered separately. The object of detention is primary to secure his presence at the time of the trial and to see he should be in court to receive sentence if awarded. However, where the accused has deep roots in the society his pretrial detention should be avoided.

22.      That the applicant/accused is ready to furnish the surety to the entire satisfaction of this Hon’ble court.

23.      That it may be submitted that the applicant accused has a complete clean record. The applicant/accused has never been convicted in past in any case. It cannot be construed under any circumstances that the applicant accused has bad record which suggest that he is likely to commit, similar or serious offences while on bail.

24.      That section 439 Cr.P.C. itself provides that the court can impose the condition while granting bail that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

25.      That the accused has deep roots in the society and there is absolutely no chance of the accused running away from the course of justice or tampering with evidence.

26.      That the accused has already been in jail for the last more than six months.

27.      That no useful purpose would be served by not enlarging the applicant on bail during pendency of the trial.

P R A Y E R

         It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

a)        Grant bail to the applicant and to release the applicant on bail in the FIR No. 209/2016 under Sections 302 IPC registered at Police Station __________, Delhi the interest of justice and on any terms and condition that the Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE ACCUSED SHALL ALWAYS PRAY.

DELHI                                                                             APPLICANT

THROUGH

DATED:      

___________________

ADVOCATES

A-64, Nizamuddin East,

New Delhi-110013