IN THE COURT OF SH.XXXXXXXX ; LD.ASJ;XXXXX COURT, DELHI.

BAIL APPLICATION NO.____ OF 20__.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

STATE                V/S.                    RAM KISHAN 

S/o ________________

R/o _________________

FIR No. _______

U/S.: 20 of NDPS Act

P.S.: ____________

In JC since_________.

BAIL APPLICATION FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED / APPLICANT NAMELY XXXXXX UNDER SECTION 437 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR GRANT OF BAIL.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-

1.          That the aforesaid FIR has been registered against the applicant / accused in the aforesaid case by the police officials of Crime Branch, Delhi on the basis of reliable source information.

2.      That the applicant/accused is a peace loving citizen of India and is having deep roots in the society.

3.      That the applicant / accused is a doing daily wages work in his town and oftenly comes at Delhi for the said purpose for his livelihood and that of his family.

4.      That the applicant / accused is illiterate person having ailing mother who is suffering from TB and one unmarried sister, they totally dependent upon the applicant and applicant is only bread earner in his family and no male member in his family except him to look after his ailing mother and sister.

5.       That FIR in the present case came to be registered on 23.07.20XX on the reliable sources as stated by the prosecution, under Section 20 of NDPS Act.

A.      That it is stated by the prosecution that

B.      That it is further stated by the prosecution that

6.      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 trial as the accused /applicant is an innocent person and has not committed any offence whatsoever.

7.       That the investigation of the said case already being over and there being absolutely no chance of the accused fleeing away from the process of law, the accused is entitled to bail.

8.      That the accused is always available to submit himself to the custody of the court at any point of time.

9.      That, it is the basic criminal jurisprudence that the accused is considered innocent until held guilty.

10.     That the accused has already suffered immensely as the accused has been in jail since 22.07.20XX i.e. now more than 40 days from the date of arrest has been passed.

11.     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.

12.     That the applicant / accused who is under trial prisoner cannot be detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial.

13.    That the trial may take considerable time and the accused, who is in jail, has to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had he been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period.

14.     That section 437 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.

15.    That even prima facie there is nothing to show either the commission of aforesaid offence under section 20 of NDPS Act or the involvement of the accused in the said offence.

16.     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.

17.     That applicant is not required for any custodial interrogation as applicant had been in Police custody since 22.07.2016 which itself suggest that applicant is not required in the present case.

18.     That the allegations are false, frivolous and totally vague and it an attempt to implicate the applicant into false and fabricated case and applicant is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity.

19.     That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in a matter titled as “Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.” (2011) 1 SCC 694 that; “It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided.

          Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record.

          A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and it times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-conviction stage.”

20.    That prosecution with their artful manipulation and by concealing certain facts has perhaps succeeding in getting the FIR registered against the applicant but it is humble submission of the applicant that the facts stated in the FIR qua the applicant in abruptly false, has no truthful bearing in it.

21.     That the applicant / accused do not have any criminal record and do not have any criminal antecedents. That the applicant / accused have no desire to evade the due process of law & shall face the trial to vindicate his innocence.

22.    That it is further submitted that accused / applicant is not required for further investigation and no further recovery is required from the applicant / accused.

23.    That accused / applicant undertake to appear before this Hon'ble Court as and when required before this Hon'ble Court and applicant / accused will not misuse the liberty of bail of this Hon'ble Court.

24.    That it is further submitted that the applicant / accused seeks the permission of this Hon'ble Court to urge additional ground which would be made available to him at the time of hearing of the present application.

PRAYER

In view of the above, it is therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant bail to the applicant / accused in FIR No. XXX under Section 20 of NDPS Act registered with Police officials of Crime Branch, Delhi and may release the applicant / accused on bail in the interest of justice.

Pass any other or further order(s) that this Hon'ble Court deems fit, reasonable and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.

APPLICANT

THROUGH

DATED:      

ADVOCATE