IN THE COURT OF SH. Name of the judge, LD. ASJ, Court number of the ASJ court COURT, DELHI.
BAIL APPLICATION NO. Bail application number OF 20Year of the bail application.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
STATEV/S. Applicant's name
S/o Applicant's father's name
R/o Applicant's address
FIR No. FIR number
U/S.: 20 of NDPS Act
P.S.: Police station
In JC since Date of being taken into judicial custody.
BAIL APPLICATION FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED / APPLICANT NAMEDLY Applicant's name UNDER SECTION 437 OF THE 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 Investigating agency, Delhi, on the basis of source information stated to be reliable.
2.That the applicant / accused is a peace-loving citizen of India and has deep roots in society.
3.That the applicant / accused earns his livelihood as a daily-wage worker in his town and frequently visits Delhi for the said purpose, for his own livelihood and that of his family.
4.That the applicant / accused is an illiterate person, having an ailing mother who is suffering from tuberculosis and one unmarried sister, both of whom are wholly dependent upon the applicant. The applicant is the sole bread-earner of his family, and there is no male member in his family other than himself to look after his ailing mother and sister.
5.That the FIR in the present case came to be registered on Date of registration of the FIR on the basis of source information, as stated by the prosecution, under Section 20 of the 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 upon 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 is already over, and there being absolutely no chance of the accused fleeing 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 this Hon'ble Court at any point of time.
9.That it is a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is to be considered innocent until held guilty.
10.That the accused has already suffered immensely, as he has been in judicial custody since Date of being taken into judicial custody, i.e. a period of more than Period of custody elapsed since arrest has elapsed from the date of his arrest.
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 once again upheld the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that "bail and not jail" is the rule, and has observed that it has been stated time and again that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also been 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 an under-trial prisoner, cannot be detained in jail custody for an indefinite period, as the same would violate Article 21 of the Constitution. Every person, whether detained or arrested, is entitled to a speedy trial.
13.That the trial may take considerable time, and the accused, being in jail, would have to remain in jail for longer than the period of detention had he been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that the accused should remain in jail for an indefinite period.
14.That Section 437 Cr.P.C. itself provides that the Court may, while granting bail, impose the condition 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 on a prima facie view, there is nothing to show either the commission of the aforesaid offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act or the involvement of the accused in the said offence.
16.That the accused has deep roots in society, and there is absolutely no chance of the accused running away from the course of justice or tampering with the evidence.
17.That the applicant is not required for any custodial interrogation, as the applicant had already been in police custody since Date from which the applicant was in police custody, which itself suggests that the applicant is not required in the present case.
18.That the allegations are false, frivolous and wholly vague, and constitute an attempt to implicate the applicant in a false and fabricated case; the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail on the ground of parity.
19.That the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in a matter titled "Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.", (2011) 1 SCC 694, as follows: "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 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.
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, particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused, and whether 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 at 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 the prosecution, by its artful manipulation and by concealing certain facts, has perhaps succeeded in getting the FIR registered against the applicant; however, it is humbly submitted by the applicant that the facts stated in the FIR qua the applicant are absolutely false and have no truthful bearing.
21.That the applicant / accused does not have any criminal record or criminal antecedents. The applicant / accused has no desire to evade the due process of law and shall face the trial in order to vindicate his innocence.
22.That it is further submitted that the accused / applicant is not required for further investigation, and no further recovery is required from the applicant / accused.
23.That the accused / applicant undertakes to appear before this Hon'ble Court as and when required, and the applicant / accused shall not misuse the liberty of bail granted by 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 grounds, which may be made available to him at the time of the hearing of the present application.
PRAYER
In view of the above, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant bail to the applicant / accused in FIR No. FIR number under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, registered with the police officials of Investigating agency, 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 may deem fit, reasonable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
APPLICANT
THROUGH
DATED:
ADVOCATE