IN THE COURT OF THE LEARNED DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTH-WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Applicant's name, Delhi-110086…Applicant
Versus
Respondent (State) name….Respondent
INDEX
| S.NO. | PARTICULARS | PAGE NO. |
|---|
| 1. | Application for anticipatory bail on behalf of the applicant, Applicant's name | |
| 2. | Copy of FIR No. FIR number | |
| 3. | Copy of the complaint dated Date of first complaint filed by Sh. Complainant's name vide DD No. DD number of first complaint before the SHO, Vijay Vihar, Delhi, along with a copy of the same sent to the Commissioner of Police (Delhi Police), DCP Outer District, Delhi, and the SHO, PS Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (U.P.), together with postal receipts. | |
| 4. | Copy of the complaint dated Date of second complaint filed by Sh. Complainant's name vide DD No. DD number of second complaint before the SHO, Vijay Vihar, along with a copy of the same sent to the Commissioner of Police (Delhi Police), DCP Outer District, Delhi, and the SHO, PS Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (U.P.), together with postal receipts. | |
| 5. | Photographs of the CCTV cameras installed at the shop of the parents of the applicant, of the recording dated Date of CCTV recording | |
| 6. | Compact Discs containing the voice recordings of the complainant and his family from Start date of voice recording to End date of voice recording | |
DelhiApplicant/Accused
Dated: Date of signingThrough
Advocate's name, Advocate
Office: Advocate's office address
Mobile: Advocate's mobile number
IN THE COURT OF THE LEARNED DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTH-WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Applicant's name, Address: Applicant's address, Delhi-110086…..Applicant
Versus
Respondent (State) name….Respondent
F.I.R. No. FIR number
Under Sections 376/328/506 IPC
P.S. Police station name
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, Applicant's name, IN FIR NO. FIR number UNDER SECTIONS 376/328/506 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, REGISTERED AT POLICE STATION Police station name, DELHI
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.That the applicant is a peace-loving and law-abiding citizen of India, residing at the abovementioned address, and has enjoyed a clean record of antecedents throughout his life.
2.That the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials of Police Station Police station name at the instance of the complainant, Complainant's name, who is the wife of the elder brother of the applicant. The applicant is not involved in any case as alleged by the complainant.
3.That the applicant belongs to a respectable family in society. The complainant is determined to humiliate and harass the applicant and has filed a completely false case against him by concocting a false and imaginary story. The incident of rape alleged by her never occurred at any point of time.
4.That the parents of the applicant carry on the business of wholesale and retail sale of lace, embroidery, butta, etc., under the name and style of Name of applicant's family business, Delhi, wherein the applicant is also working. The applicant used to go daily to the place of business along with his parents at the said shop, except on holidays.
5.That, in fact, the complainant was married to the elder brother of the applicant, namely Applicant's elder brother's name, according to Hindu rites and customs on Date of marriage. That after the marriage, the complainant joined her matrimonial home at Matrimonial home address, Delhi. The family of the applicant gave her a very warm welcome, love and affection at her matrimonial home. However, some days after the marriage, Applicant's brother's name and his parents found that the complainant was completely non-cooperative and arrogant, and that her behaviour towards her husband and the other family members was unacceptable.
6.That at the time of the marriage, the complainant and her parents told Applicant's brother's name and his parents that the complainant was a matriculate (10th standard pass). However, later, when the parental family and the matrimonial family of the complainant visited Place in Rajasthan, Rajasthan, on Date of visit to Rajasthan for the recitation of the Hanuman Chalisa, Applicant's brother's name and his parents learnt that the complainant and her parents had been telling a lie about the complainant being a matriculate, because the complainant was unable to read and recite the Hanuman Chalisa.
7.That on 15.04.2016, both the families returned to their respective homes, but since then the complainant deliberately used to pick quarrels with Applicant's brother's name and his parents without any rhyme or reason. That the complainant is a lady of a quarrelsome nature and rude behaviour, and from the very beginning she did not adjust herself in her matrimonial family. The complainant always refused to do household work. After a quarrel, the complainant stated: "I have to go to my home and I do not want to live here."
8.That the complainant went to her parental home on Date complainant left matrimonial home along with her mother, uncle and brother, of her own volition, after a quarrel with the brother and parents of the applicant. Thereafter, on Date complainant returned, the complainant came to her matrimonial home along with both her brothers.
9.That on Date of Rakshabandhan visit, on the occasion of Rakshabandhan, the brothers of the complainant, namely Complainant's brother's name and Complainant's cousin brother's name (cousin brother), came to the matrimonial home of the complainant to tie the Rakhi, but after some time the complainant prepared to go to her parental home without the consent of her in-laws. When the parents and brother of the applicant asked the complainant the reason for leaving the matrimonial home without their consent, the complainant used filthy language and quarrelled with them. The mother of the complainant telephoned the mobile phone of the mother of the applicant and used abusive language, stating: "Ham pure pariwar ko khatam kar denge or pure buddh vihar mein aag laga denge or easa dan-dahej ka case lagayenge ki pura pariwar jivan bhar jail mein sadta rahega" (we will finish the whole family and set the whole of Budh Vihar on fire, and implicate them in a false dowry-demand case so that the whole family remains behind bars for their whole lives).
10.That on Date of disclosure about engagement, the complainant told her husband and his mother that her engagement ceremony had earlier taken place with a boy named Name of complainant's former fiancé at Place of engagement (U.P.), but the marriage ceremony could not take place thereafter. The complainant also stated that she liked Saurabh and had not forgotten him, that she used to speak to him on his phone, and that he also used to call her. After 3–4 days, the complainant further told the family that she had conversed with another boy, namely Name of second man complainant spoke to, and stated that she used to speak to both of the said boys.
11.Thereafter, the brother of the applicant, namely Applicant's brother's name, overheard the conversation of the complainant with her parents, sister and brother on the mobile phone, and was surprised to learn that they were planning to implicate the family of Applicant's name in false and frivolous cases.
12.That the mother of the complainant told the complainant on the mobile phone: "Naina tu darna mat pure khandan mein aag laga denge. In sabko ghar se bhaga denge or tu rani banker rahegi." Naina stated: "Mein ghar se bhagkar atamhatya kar lungi ya jahar kha lungi or sabhi ko fasa dungi tab tum dekhte rahna ki jindgi bhar tumhe jail se jamanat nahi mil payegi." The sister of the complainant, namely Complainant's sister's name, and the father of the complainant also spoke to the complainant on the mobile phone in a rude and harsh manner; they incited the complainant, and her father threatened to kill him. The voice recordings of the conversations between the complainant and her family members are annexed herewith for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.
13.Thereafter, the brother and mother of the applicant made efforts to persuade the complainant and her parents, both personally by telephone and through Name of intermediary/persuader, but they asserted that they and their daughter were in the right, and that the complainant's husband and his family members were in the wrong.
14.That the husband of the complainant was left with no other option and lodged a complaint dated Date of husband's complaint before the SHO, Police station name, Delhi, which was registered vide DD No. DD number of complaint. A copy of the same was sent to the Commissioner of Police (Delhi Police), the DCP Outer District, Delhi, and the SHO, PS Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (U.P.). Copies of the said complaint and the postal receipts are annexed herewith.
15.That the brother of the complainant, namely Complainant's brother's name, came to the matrimonial home of the complainant on Date brother took complainant away at about 8:00 p.m. and took the complainant away without the consent of her husband. The complainant submitted information in this regard to Police Station Vijay Vihar on Date of information to police, which was registered vide DD No. DD number of information dated Date of DD entry, and a copy of the same was sent to the Commissioner of Police (Delhi Police), the DCP Outer District, Delhi, and the SHO, PS Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (U.P.). Copies of the said information and the postal receipts are annexed herewith.
16.That the applicant invokes the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail on account of the false complaint filed by Complainant's name against the applicant and his parents, on the basis of which an F.I.R. bearing No. FIR number has been registered against the applicant and his parents. A copy of the FIR is annexed herewith.
17.That the applicant 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 applicant is an innocent person who has not committed any offence whatsoever.
18.That F.I.R. No. FIR number, which has been registered on the basis of the false complaint filed by the complainant, is per se illegal and based on false facts. This is evident on a reading of the FIR as a whole. The particulars mentioned in the FIR are as under:-
A. Date of FIRDate of FIR
B. Sections376/328/506 IPC
C. Occurrence of offenceDate of occurrence
D. Time of occurrenceTime of occurrence
E. Information received at the PSTime police received information
F. Contents of FIR:-
i.Contents of FIR
G. Date and time of occurrenceDate of occurrence at Time of occurrence p.m.
H. Place of occurrencePlace of occurrence
I. Time of sending tehrirDate of sending tehrir at Time of sending tehrir p.m.
19.The applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail, inter alia, on the following grounds:-
GROUNDS:-
(a)That the applicant is a respectable and responsible citizen of the country, enjoying respect and goodwill in society on account of his sincerity, honesty and responsible conduct and behaviour. The applicant has clean antecedents and has never given any cause of complaint to anybody in his life.
(b)That the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials of P.S. Police station name at the instance of the complainant, Complainant's name. The applicant is not involved in any other case.
(c)That the story set up by the complainant is, on its face, totally false, inasmuch as on Date applicant was at shop the applicant was present at his shop at Shop address, Delhi, from Shop arrival time a.m. till Shop departure time p.m. In fact, the complainant had come to the shop along with her husband, Complainant's husband's name, at about Time complainant arrived at shop a.m., and both of them left the shop at Time complainant left shop p.m. Hence, the entire story of the complainant that the applicant raped her at Place of alleged rape at Time of alleged rape, Delhi, is false to the knowledge of the complainant, and the applicant has been falsely implicated.
(d)That, in fact, 12 CCTV cameras are installed at the said shop, and the CCTV footage of Date of CCTV footage is available in the instruments/DVR, which can be seen by this Hon'ble Court by issuing a direction to the concerned I.O. to collect the hard disc of the CCTV cameras. In the said CCTV footage, the complainant is clearly visible sitting inside the shop.
(e)That, in fact, CCTV Camera No. 11 shows the following events:-
i.Time Time on CCTV hrs: the applicant, Applicant's name, is shown sitting at the counter, and Complainant's name is inside the shop.
ii.Time 16:00 hrs: Complainant's name is shown with Complainant's husband's name.
iii.Time 16:20 hrs: three persons are seen together.
iv.Time 17:00 hrs: a person is shown sitting behind the parcel counter.
v.Time 18:44 hrs: four persons, along with their mother, are sitting together.
vi.Time 19:33 hrs: all the aforesaid four persons are sitting together near the cash counter.
(f)Hence, the aforesaid details captured on camera render the version of the complainant totally false and unbelievable.
(g)That, as a matter of fact, the applicant has been implicated in the aforesaid case on a concocted story in order to put pressure upon the family of the applicant and to cover up the bad character of the complainant. In fact, the complainant was having an affair with two persons.
(h)That, in fact, the complainant married the brother of the applicant, Applicant's brother's name, against her wishes, as she wanted to marry Name of man complainant wanted to marry.
(i)That the story of the complainant stands falsified by her own conduct, in that she remained silent for approximately six months from the date of the marriage until Date of first complaint after marriage. Not a single complaint was filed before the police in this regard. In fact, nothing happened as alleged by the complainant at any point of time.
(j)That the complainant alleged in her complaint/FIR that she was not permitted to leave the home or speak to her parents. The story of the complainant in this regard is totally baseless, as there are numerous telephone recordings available with the husband of the complainant which prove that the complainant spoke to her mother, father and sister at different times from Start date of phone recordings to End date of phone recordings, and told them about the aforesaid two persons, namely Names of the two men.
(k)That even otherwise, it is the case of the complainant that she was ill and the applicant gave her medicine. This story of the complainant is baseless and has no legs to stand upon, as it can clearly be seen in the CCTV footage that the complainant was eating fast food, such as patties, in the shop on Date of CCTV showing complainant eating.
(l)That from the voice recordings it is clear that the complainant used to talk to her mother and sister four to five times a day. The details of the conversations are as under:-
DateTime / Conversation between
Date of conversationTime of conversation — Description of conversation
(m)The truth can come out upon consideration of the voice recordings from Start date of voice recording to End date of voice recording and the CCTV footage of Date of CCTV footage. It is necessary, and also in the interest of justice, that the police should seize and verify the same, whereupon the truth will come out.
(n)That at the time of the alleged incident, as per the FIR, the complainant was sitting inside the shop at the cash counter; therefore, the story of the complainant is a bundle of lies and nothing else.
(o)That the investigation of the said case is already complete, and there being absolutely no likelihood of the applicant absconding from the process of law, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
(p)That the applicant shall always remain available to submit himself to the custody of the Hon'ble Court at any point of time, should the Hon'ble Court be of the opinion that the custody of the applicant is necessary.
(q)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 reaffirmed the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence of "bail and not jail", and has repeatedly observed that bail is the rule and committal to jail the exception. It has further been observed that the refusal of bail constitutes a restriction upon the personal liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
(r)That it is a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that the applicant is to be considered innocent until held guilty.
(s)That in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand, (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 baren once every fortnight."
(t)That in the case of Siddharam Satlingoppa 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."
(u)That in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.; 2015 (8) JT 125, 2015 (9) SCALE 403, the Supreme Court held that custodial interrogation should be avoided where 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."
(v)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 arresting the accused, the arresting officer must record valid reasons for the arrest in the case diary.
(w)Because there is no requirement that the accused must make out a 'special case' for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail.
(x)Because a person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free person entitled to the presumption of innocence. The Court has, however, made it clear 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 visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail".
(y)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.
(z)Because the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice, and the likelihood of the accused repeating similar or other offences, must also be duly considered.
(aa)That tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, it would be clear that the applicant / accused is absolutely innocent and was not involved at all in the alleged rape said to have been committed on Date of alleged rape at Time of alleged rape p.m., and is hence entitled to anticipatory bail.
(bb)Because the FIR has been preferred belatedly. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on Date of alleged incident at Time of alleged incident p.m., whereas the FIR was registered on Date of FIR registration, and no credible explanation has been furnished for the said delay of eight days.
(cc)Because the place and time at which the offences are alleged to have been committed are improbable, in view of the fact that the complainant, her husband, the applicant / accused and his mother were all present at the shop, as is evident from the CCTV footage referred to above.
(dd)Because the complainant had several opportunities to complain about the alleged incident, yet she neither disclosed the incident nor made any allegations against any of the accused till Date till which no allegations made.
(ee)Because there is a complete absence of medical evidence to support the allegation of rape.
(ff)Because there is no evidence in the form of any pathological report or serologist's report which may support the case of the complainant regarding the alleged rape.
(gg)Because the victim had every opportunity to inform her husband and other family members about the alleged incident, but she did not do so, and this fact by itself demonstrates that the story is false and concocted.
(hh)The Supreme Court in Tameezuddin @ Tammu vs. State of (NCT) of Delhi, 2009 (4) JCC 2809, has held as under:
"It is true that in a case of rape, the evidence of prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration but to hold that her evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which governs the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter."
(ii)The Supreme Court in Rajoo & Ors. vs. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 858, has held that:
"The evidence of the prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should, without exception, be taken as gospel truth. Additionally, her statement can, at best, be adjudged on the principle that ordinarily no injured witness would tell a lie or implicate a person falsely. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved."
(jj)As held by the Supreme Court in Mumtaz vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2013 (2) JCC 1308, the Court has to discern the truth after considering and evaluating the testimony of the material prosecution witnesses on the touchstone of basic human conduct, improbabilities and the effect of their deposition before the Court.
(kk)That, in the present case, the version of the complainant suffers from grave and acute improbabilities and is highly unbelievable, having regard to the conduct of the prosecutrix as reflected in her statement recorded in the FIR, the CCTV footage of Date of CCTV footage, and the voice recording retrieved from the mobile phone covering Date range of voice recording.
(ll)Because the allegations of rape appear to be highly far-fetched, baseless and fabricated.
(mm) Because the complainant has failed to place on record any credible, clinching or trustworthy material to establish the involvement of the accused in the alleged rape.
(nn)Because, in determining whether bail ought to be granted, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment must be taken into consideration. The grant or refusal of bail lies within the discretion of the Court, and such discretion is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. At the same time, the right to bail cannot be denied merely on account 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 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 present whenever his attendance is required.
(oo)That the applicant is a permanent resident of the above-mentioned address, namely Flat No. Flat number of applicant's residence, Second Floor, Colony/street of applicant's residence, Delhi-110086, and used to accompany his parents daily to the shop situated at Shop address. The applicant has clean antecedents, exercises no influence over the prosecution witnesses, and there is no likelihood of tampering with them.
(pp)That the applicant is ready and willing to furnish sound surety to the entire satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court.
(qq)That it is respectfully submitted that the applicant bears 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 other offences while on bail.
(rr)That the applicant belongs to a respectable family in society. The complainant is determined to humiliate and harass the applicant, and has filed a wholly false complaint against the applicant and his family members on the strength of a false story.
(ss)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.
(tt)That the necessity for granting anticipatory bail in this case arises principally 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 detaining him in jail for some days, as a pressure tactic to compel his family to 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, since there is absolutely no ground for assuming or presuming that the applicant will abscond, misuse his liberty, or tamper with the evidence if bail is granted.
(uu)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 even in the eyes of the public at large, as the applicant holds a respectable position in society. The applicant has been a permanent resident of Delhi 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.
(vv)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. as being to relieve a person from unnecessary harassment or disgrace, and held that such relief is granted when the Court is otherwise convinced that there is no likelihood of misuse of the liberty granted, since the person would neither abscond nor take any step so as to avoid the due process of law.
(ww)That the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others vs. State of Punjab has held as follows:
"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."
(xx)That there is no evidence whatsoever against the applicant. As a matter of fact, the applicant has been implicated in the aforesaid case on a concocted and false story.
(yy)That the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged by the complainant/prosecution.
(zz)That the falsity of the present case is apparent from a bare perusal of the contents of the F.I.R.
(aaa) That the applicant undertakes to regularly join the investigation in the present F.I.R. whenever and wherever the concerned Investigating Officer may call upon the applicant to do so.
(bbb) That the applicant shall never misuse the liberty of bail and shall not tamper with the evidence of the aforesaid case during the trial.
(ccc)That the applicant is a permanent resident of the above-mentioned address and there is no chance of the applicant absconding or fleeing from justice.
(ddd) That the applicant undertakes to furnish sound surety to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court.
(eee) That the applicant undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions, if any, that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court while granting bail to him.
(fff) 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
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in the interest of justice.
Place of signingAPPLICANT/ACCUSED
DATED: Date of signingTHROUGH
Advocate's name
Advocate