IN THE COURT OF SH. Judge's name, Designation of judge, DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
BAIL APPLICATION No. First bail application number OF Year of FIR.
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Applicant's name
S/o Applicant's father's name
Address: APPLICANT
VERSUS
STATE: RESPONDENT
F.I.R. No.: FIR number
Under Sections: Sections of FIR
P.S.: Police station
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
BAIL APPLICATION No. Second bail application number OF Year of FIR.
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Second applicant's name
Address: APPLICANT
VERSUS
STATE: RESPONDENT
F.I.R. No.: FIR number/Year of FIR
Under Sections: IPC section 1/IPC section 2/IPC section 3 IPC
P.S.: Police station
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, NAMELY Applicant's name, IN FIR NO. FIR number/Year of FIR UNDER SECTIONS 498A/406/34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE REGISTERED AT POLICE STATION Police station, DELHI.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR: -
1.That the applicant is a peace-loving and law-abiding citizen of India and is, therefore, entitled to the protection of his life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2.That the applicant is innocent and is in no manner whatsoever connected with the said offence. It is submitted that the applicant, who has been named in the FIR, has been falsely implicated in the said case.
3.That this application is moved on behalf of the applicant for the grant of bail in FIR No. FIR number/Year of FIR under Sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Police station, Delhi.
4.That the brief facts of the prosecution are as under: -
A.That the applicant was served with a notice under Section 41A CrPC by the Investigating Officer in the aforesaid case, requiring him to join the investigation on Date of notice under Section 41A CrPC.
B.That it is respectfully submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of Applicant's hometown in Punjab, Punjab.
C.That the aforesaid FIR has been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant, namely Ms. Complainant's name. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the complainant with an ulterior motive.
D.That, as alleged in the FIR, no act of cruelty was ever committed by the applicant, nor was any demand of dowry ever made by him.
E.That, as alleged in the FIR, the applicant never made any demand for dowry and never troubled the complainant on account of her bringing insufficient dowry. It is further submitted that, even as per the FIR, no demand of dowry was made by the applicant.
F.That the police officials have falsely implicated the accused persons, including the applicant, for no plausible reason.
5.That the applicant shall always remain available to submit himself to the custody of this Hon'ble Court at any point of time, should the Hon'ble Court form the opinion that the custody of the applicant is necessary.
6.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 once again upheld the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence of "bail and not jail", and has observed, as it has time and again, that bail is the rule and committal to jail the exception. It was further observed that the refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
7.That it is a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that the applicant is to be considered innocent until held guilty.
8.That in the case of [State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand,](http://indiankanoon.org/doc/8258/)
(1977) 4 SCC 308, the 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 on 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 Bikaner once every fortnight."
9.That in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Hon'ble Court observed that:
"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."
10.That in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.; 2015 (8) JT 125, 2015 (9) SCALE 403, the Supreme Court has held that custodial interrogation should be avoided if the accused cooperates in the investigation, as "a great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest".
"In cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined the investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest."
"Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-conviction stage."
11.Because while dealing with a plea for anticipatory bail, the gravity of the charge and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended, and before effecting arrest, the officer must record valid reasons for the arrest in the case diary.
12.Because there is no requirement that the accused must make out a 'special case' for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail.
13.Because a person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. It has been held that "no inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail."
14.Because while dealing with an application for anticipatory bail, the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before his arrest.
15.Because the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice, and the likelihood of the accused repeating similar or other offences, must also be considered.
16.Because in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. The grant or refusal of bail lies within the discretion of the Court, and such grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. At the same time, the right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the applicant. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the applicant of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him in custody pending the trial, and, at the same time, to keep the applicant constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, so as to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and remain in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.
17.That the applicant bears a clean antecedent record, exercises no influence over the prosecution witnesses, and there is no likelihood of the evidence being tampered with by him.
18.That the applicant is ready and willing to furnish sound surety to the entire satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court.
19.That it may respectfully be submitted that the applicant has a completely clean record and has never been convicted in any case in the past. It cannot, under any circumstances, be construed that the applicant has a bad record suggesting that he is likely to commit similar or serious offences while on bail.
20.That the applicant belongs to a respectable family in society. The complainant is intent upon humiliating and harassing the applicant and has filed a wholly false complaint against the applicant and his family members on the strength of a fabricated story.
21.That the applicant has deep roots in society and commands social respect, and the attempt of the complainant is to disgrace him by having him arrested.
22.That the necessity for granting anticipatory bail in this case arises mainly because the said FIR has been lodged on the strength of a false story. The applicant has been implicated in a false case for the purpose of disgracing him and of detaining him in jail for some days, as a pressure tactic to make the applicant's family yield to the illegal demands of the complainant's family. There appears to be no justification for requiring the applicant first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days, and thereafter apply for regular bail, because there is absolutely no ground for assuming or presuming that the applicant will either abscond, misuse his liberty, or tamper with the evidence if bail is granted.
23.That in the above facts and circumstances, there is absolutely no need for the Investigating Officer to arrest the applicant, and this Hon'ble Court ought to protect the applicant so as to save him from unnecessary humiliation in the eyes of his near and dear ones and of the public at large, as the applicant holds a respectable position in society. The applicant has been a permanent resident of Place where the applicant has been a permanent resident since childhood since childhood. It is not only the applicant but also his family members who will suffer if the applicant is detained in jail for no fault of his own.
24.That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinderjit Singh Sahni vs. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 210, restated the object of Section 438 Cr.P.C., namely, to relieve a person from unnecessary harassment or disgrace, and that such bail is granted when the Court is otherwise convinced that there is no likelihood of misuse of the liberty granted, since the applicant would neither abscond nor take any step so as to avoid due process of law.
25.That the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others vs. State of Punjab has held that:
"The provision of anticipatory bail enshrined in Section 438 of the Code is conceptualized under Article 21 of the Constitution which relates to personal liberty. Therefore, such a provision calls for liberal interpretation of Section 438 of the Code in light of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Code explains that an anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is issued, he shall be released on bail. The distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory bail is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and therefore means release from the custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of arrest and is therefore, effective at the very moment of arrest. A direction under Section 438 is therefore intended to confer conditional immunity from the 'touch' or confinement contemplated by Section 46 of the Code. The essence of this provision is brought out in the following manner:
"26. We find a great deal of substance in Mr Tarkunde's submission that since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438, especially when no such restrictions have been imposed by the legislature in the terms of that section. Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of the individual, who is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence since he is not, on the date of his application for anticipatory bail, convicted of the offence in respect of which he seeks bail. An over-generous infusion of constraints and conditions which are not to be found in Section 438 can make its provisions constitutionally vulnerable since the right to personal freedom cannot be made to depend on compliance with unreasonable restrictions. The beneficent provision contained in Section 438 must be saved, not jettisoned. No doubt can linger after the decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, that in order to meet the challenge of Article 21 of the Constitution, the procedure established by law for depriving a person of his liberty must be fair, just and reasonable. Section 438, in the form in which it is conceived by the legislature, is open to no exception on the ground that it prescribes a procedure which is unjust or unfair. We ought, at all costs, to avoid throwing it open to a Constitutional challenge by reading words in it which are not to be found therein."
26.That there is no evidence whatsoever against the applicant, and that, as a matter of fact, the applicant has been implicated in the aforesaid case on a concocted and false story.
27.That the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant/prosecution.
28.That the falsity of the present case is apparent from a bare perusal of the contents of the FIR.
29.That the applicant undertakes to regularly join the investigation in the present FIR whenever and wherever the concerned Investigating Officer calls upon the applicant.
30.That the applicant shall never misuse the bail granted to him and shall not tamper with the evidence of the aforesaid case during the trial.
31.That the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned above, and there is no chance of his absconding or fleeing from justice.
32.That the applicant undertakes to furnish sound surety to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court.
33.That the applicant undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions, if any, imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting bail to him.
34.That the applicant craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to raise any other or further ground at the time of hearing of the bail application.
PRAYER
On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the applicant most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to order:
(a)to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant and to release the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest, in the interest of justice and on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;
(b)to pass any other directions/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate in the interest of justice.
AND THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT, AS IN DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY.
Place of filing shown above the applicant's signature blockAPPLICANT
THROUGH
DATED
(Date of application)
Name of the advocate signing the application
Address.