IN THE COURT OF THE LD. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, Court complex name COURT, District name DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. Bail application number OF Year of bail application
IN THE MATTER OF:
State (Investigating agency name)V/s Accused's name
INDEX
| S.NO. | PARTICULARS OF DOCUMENTS | PAGES |
|---|
| 1. | APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT/PETITIONER FOR A DIRECTION TO PRESERVE THE CCTV FOOTAGE OF HOTEL Hotel name | |
APPLICANT
Through
COUNSEL
Date
New Delhi
IN THE COURT OF THE LD. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, Court complex name and district, NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. Bail application number OF Year of bail application
IN THE MATTER OF:
State (Investigating agency name)V/s Accused's name
New Delhi, Under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995, Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897,
Sections 420/468/471/188/120B/34 IPC
The Applicant is in custody since Date of custody
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT/PETITIONER FOR A DIRECTION TO PRESERVE THE CCTV FOOTAGE OF HOTEL Hotel name
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1.That the Applicant is a law-abiding citizen of India and was arrested in FIR No. FIR number, dated Date of FIR, registered at Police Station Police station name, New Delhi.
2.That the Applicant, Applicant's name, carries on the business of procuring and supplying masks and medical gloves under "M/s First business firm name" and also under "M/s Second business firm name", in which he was assisted by Mr. Business assistant's name. In the course of the said business of masks and medical gloves, the Applicant came into contact with Contact person's name in Delhi of Delhi. It is pertinent to mention that a Sale-Purchase Agreement dated Date of sale-purchase agreement was executed between M/s Seller firm name in agreement and Buyer firm name in agreement, and consequential transfers of amounts were made through banking channels on 13.3.Year of first bank transfer (Rs. First transfer amount (₹)/-), 18.3.Year of second bank transfer (Rs. Second transfer amount (₹)/-) and 23.3.Year of third bank transfer (Rs. Third transfer amount (₹)/-) by M/s Payer firm name to M/s Payee company name India Pvt. Ltd., which clearly shows that the Applicant was engaged in the legal business of masks and medical gloves, and for that purpose alone he had come to Delhi along with Co-traveller's name. The copies of the Sale-Purchase Agreement dated Date of sale-purchase agreement between M/s Seller firm name in agreement and M/s Payee company name India Pvt. Ltd., together with the bank statements (showing the transfers of amounts on Date of first bank transfer, Date of second bank transfer and Date of third bank transfer), are enclosed herewith.
3.That on Date of stay in Delhi, the Applicant was staying with Person applicant stayed with when, at about 10:30 p.m., an investigation team of the Crime Branch Police Station arrived there under the pretext that the arrested accused, Name of arrested accused, in FIR No. FIR number of arrested accused had disclosed the names of First disclosed name and Second disclosed name. It is pertinent to mention, with utmost honesty and accountability, that during the personal interrogation as well as the search of Person searched, no incriminating material was found. Even so, from 10:30 p.m. on Date of pickup onwards, both First detained person's name and Second detained person's name were taken into custody by the investigation team of Investigation team name. They were initially taken to First place of detention and were thereafter brought to Second place of detention, where they were badly beaten, physically tortured and mentally harassed. Shockingly, until Date of release from illegal detention, Name of person illegally detained longer was illegally detained in the police lock-up without his arrest being shown, whereas Name of person released earlier was released from illegal detention on Date of release of person released earlier.
4.That the CCTV footage of Hotel name is of great importance to prove the innocence of the Applicant, and it is therefore essential to preserve the CCTV footage for the period Period of CCTV footage in order to establish the innocence of the Applicant.
5.That at this juncture itself, it becomes a matter of great importance to place before this Hon'ble Court that the guidelines laid down in paragraph 35 of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, have been completely violated. Further, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 8 SCC 273, has clearly laid down as under:-
"As per section 41(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C., when offence is punishable upto 7 years imprisonment; Police officer can only arrest a person,
(a)If he is satisfied that person has committed offence;
(b)Further he should be satisfied that arrest is necessary
(i)to prevent commission of further offence OR
(ii)for proper investigation of offence OR
(iii)to prevent accused from tampering evidence OR
(iv)to prevent accused from threatening witnesses OR
(v)to ensure presence of accused in Court
Police officer has to record reasons in writing.
As per Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India & section 57 of Cr.P.C., within 24 hours of arrest, accused must be produced before Magistrate. If Magistrate is satisfied that arrest is legal Condition of satisfaction then Magistrate authorizes further detention u/s.167 Cr.P.C.. Magistrate has to record his satisfaction in writing. But if Magistrate feels that 'arrest does not satisfy requirement u/s.41(1) then Magistrate cannot authorize further detention u/s.167 Cr.P.C. and has to release accused.
As per section 41A of Cr.P.C. when arrest of person is not required u/s.41(1), then Police Officer has to give him notice for appearance, then accused is obliged to appear before him. If accused complies with the said notice, then accused cannot be arrested. But, if police officer thinks that "arrest is necessary". Then by recording reasons in writing, Police Officer can arrest him. Then also conditions in section 41(1)(b)(ii) will apply and it shall be subject to same scrutiny by Magistrate."
That, in the present case of the Applicant, the aforesaid decision laid down by the Supreme Court has been clearly violated, thereby infringing his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(d), (g), 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
6.That it is pertinent to mention that thereafter, on Date of freeing of person freed, Name of person freed was freed from the illegal detention of Detaining authority name. The question therefore arises that if First detained person's name and Second detained person's name were together and were picked up on Date of pickup (at about Time of pickup p.m.) from Room No. Room number, then why was Name of person freed freed, and that too after an illegal detention of 48 hours. It is again pertinent to mention that if Name of person freed was freed, then the similarly placed Name of applicant still detained too ought to have been freed, applying the doctrine of parity. Instead, the Applicant was treated as a milching cow, Name of person extorted, from whom a sum of Rs. Amount of illegal gratification extracted (₹)/- has so far been extracted as illegal gratification for showing favour in the discharge of public duties. The police machinery thereafter started insisting that the entire demand of Rs. Total demanded amount (₹)/- be complied with, failing which Name of person threatened with implication would be implicated in an illegal racket of Drug brand name, i.e. Drug name injections.
7.That it has been shown by the Police that, on Date of alleged recovery, six Drug name injections were allegedly recovered, and that Name of co-accused along with six Drug name injections was arrested; this is absolutely wrong. With utmost accountability and honesty, it is submitted that Applicant's name never knew Name of co-accused. Further, Applicant's name was never in possession of six vials of Drug brand name, i.e. Drug name injections, and he was not at all present at Location where applicant was not present on 25/Date of alleged absence. The investigating machinery has created a completely false record.
8.That it is once again pertinent to mention that from Start date of illegal detention of applicant to End date of illegal detention of applicant, the Applicant was illegally detained and mercilessly beaten in police custody, in flagrant violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and directly contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal : (1997) 1 SCC 416 and Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar : (2014) 8 SCC 273.
9.That thereafter, on Date of production before Duty MM, the Applicant was produced before the Ld. Duty MM, along with a remand application filed by the IO, Crime Branch, Police Station Police station name, through video conference, at a time when the accused was admittedly in their police custody; and the Ld. Duty MM was pleased to grant three days of police custody remand of the present Applicant, i.e. up to End date of police custody remand.
The Applicant, therefore, prays as follows:-
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court that, in the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the present case, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:-
(a)direct the concerned official of Authority to preserve CCTV footage to preserve the CCTV footage for the period Period of CCTV footage, in the interest of justice;
(b)pass such other and further appropriate order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
APPLICANT
Through
Date
New DelhiCOUNSEL