IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

DIST.XXXX ; XXXXXCOURTS; DELHI.

BAIL APPLICATION NO.  _____ OF 20___.

IN THE MATTER OF: -

XXXXXXXXX

S/o Sh. _________________

R/o __________________

New Delhi.                                                           : APPLICANT

                                                VERSUS

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                               : RESPONDENT

                                                                   FIR No. ________

                                                U/S: 302/120B/34 IPC

                                                                             P.S.: _________

Accused in J.C. Since: ________

INDEX

          APPLICANT

Place: New Delhi          Through

Dated:

XXXXXXX,

 ADVOCATE

IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

DIST.XXXXX ; XXXXX COURTS; DELHI.

BAIL APPLICATION NO.  _____ OF 20__.

IN THE MATTER OF: -

XXXXXXXX

S/o Sh___________

R/o _______________

New Delhi.                                                           : APPLICANT

                                                VERSUS

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                               : RESPONDENT

                                                                   FIR No. ________

                                                U/S: 302/120B/34 IPC

                                                                             P.S.: _________

Accused in J.C. Since: ________

FIRST BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT / ACCUSED S/O SH. XXXXXX IN F.I.R No. XXXX UNDER SECTION 302/120B/34 OF I.P.C. REGISTERED WITH POLICE STATION XXXXXX DELHI.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1.       That the applicant/accused is a peace loving citizen of India and he is 45 years old handicapped person. Applicant suffering from Cerebral Palsy disease and dependent upon his father for essential daily activities.

2.      That the applicant is filing the present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a FIR bearing no. FIR No XXXXX under Section 302/120B/34 of IPC registered at Police StationXXXXX, Delhi. The applicant has been falsely arrayed as an accused in the present FIR. Hence, the applicant has been arrested on 18.05.20XX. There is not even an iota of evidence collected by the police to show that the Applicant committed any offence. Even prima facie there is nothing to show commission of offence under Section 302/120B/34 of IPC. 

3.      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:-

-:GROUNDS:-

A.      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.

B.      That the Applicant is 45 years old 80% handicapped person, who has been deliberately and falsely implicated in the captioned case without his fault. As the applicant is suffering from cerebral palsy since birth, a condition that affects his mobility and requires ongoing medical attention. His disease has limited his physical abilities, making him dependent on the support and care. It serves to highlight the potential hardship and risk to applicant’s health and well being if he was to remain in detention, underscoring the need for bail in this case.

C.      That since being arrested the Applicant who has cerebral palsy, has experienced a noticeable deterioration in his physical condition and he requires regular physiotherapy and medical care to manage his condition effectively prevent complications, and maintain his mobility. Despite the clear medical need, applicant has not received any medical care and even wheelchair despite the direction of the Hon’ble Court while in detention. The detention facility has failed to provide Applicant with the necessary medical attention and care required to address his deteriorating condition. This lack of medical assistance not only jeopardizes his physical health but also raises concerns about his human rights and access to proper medical treatment. Therefore, the continued denial of proper physiotherapy and medical treatment poses a significant risk to Applicant being overall health, failure to address his medical needs promptly may result in irreversible damage and undue suffering.

D.      That during the arrest Applicant, he has been subjected to challenging and adverse conditions that raise concerns about the fairness of his treatment. It has come to light that the police used coercive tactics to obtain statements. Including forcing the Applicant to sign blank papers under duress. Despite a court order mandating proper treatment and accommodations for the applicant’ medical condition, the jail authority has failed to provide the necessary support. Specifically, there has been no provision of medical help, no assistance or helper has been provided to aid the applicant with his disability and no wheelchair has been made available as per the direction of the Hon’ble Court.

E.      The applicant / accused has been falsely implicated by the prosecution and arrested from his house on the disclose statement of other co-accused.

F.      That the applicant is in judicial custody since second day of the incident and investigation has already been completed, so it is very clear that the applicant is not required for further investigation.

G.      There is no evidence on record which can be tampered by the applicant / accused in any manner as the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed after the delay of 10 days. Hence, the applicant is entitled for default of bail.

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

I.       That there is not even an iota of evidence collected by the investigating officer that the Applicant/Accused has any correlation with the murder of the deceased. Even prima facie there is nothing to show commission of offence under Section 302/120B/34 IPC. 

J.       It is further submitted that the said offence being an act of individual and the Applicant cannot be roped in the present matter under the garb of Section 120B/34 of IPC which is reproduced hereunder;-

“[120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—

(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]

[34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.]”

Since, this is individual act as stated hereinabove, the Applicant cannot be imposed liability of any kind of this offence.

K.      It is further submitted that there is no evidence against the Applicant about the complicity in the alleged offence. Furthermore, there is no pointer of involvement of the Applicant in the present case, as such Applicant is entitled for grant of bail.

L.      That the applicant being a handicapped person 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.

M.     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.

N.      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.”

O.      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.”

P.      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.

Q.      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.”

R.      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.

S.      That the Supreme Court has once again in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India, 2018) 11 SCC 1, held that "Grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As a presumably innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case".

T.      That accused / applicant is 80% handicapped persons 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.

U.      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.

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

5.       That 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.

6.      That under 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.

7.       That the accused has already been in jail for almost three months. No useful purpose would be served by not enlarging the applicant on bail during pendency of the trial.

8.      That there is absolutely no chance of the applicant running away from the course of justice or tampering with evidence.

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. XXX under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC registered at Police Station XXXXX, Delhi the interest of justice and on any terms and condition that the Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper.

b)    Any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem necessary in the circumstances of the present case.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE ACCUSED SHALL ALWAYS PRAY.

DELHI                                                    APPLICANT/ACCUSED

THROUGH

DATED:      

XXXXXXXXX

ADVOCATE