Court heading placeholder (blank line for cause title)
BAIL APPLICATION NO.OF Year of filing of the bail application
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Applicant's name and address
**Delhi.: APPLICANT**
VERSUS
Respondent's name (State): RESPONDENT
FIR No. FIR number
U/S: 302 IPC
P.S.: Police station
Accused in J.C. Since: Date of judicial custody
BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT Applicant's name S/O SH. Applicant's father's name, IN F.I.R. No. FIR number UNDER SECTION 302 I.P.C., REGISTERED AT POLICE STATION Police station, DELHI.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1.That the applicant/accused is a peace-loving citizen of India and an honest young person with deep roots in society.
2.That the applicant is a young man who has been deliberately, falsely and out of vengeance implicated in the captioned case without any fault on his part.
3.That the applicant/accused is Applicant's age in years years of age and is presently pursuing his studies.
4.That the applicant has been falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant, who is the wife of the deceased and Complainant's relation to the applicant of the applicant.
5.That the applicant has been in judicial custody since the very first day of the incident, and the police has not sought his police custody remand at any stage; it is therefore clear that the applicant is not required for any further investigation.
6.That the applicant was arrested by the police in this case from Place where the applicant was arrested, where he had accompanied his real uncle, the deceased.
7.That the applicant/accused has not committed any offence. The implication of the applicant is the result of sheer vengeance, the complainant having a vendetta against him and having prevailed upon the investigating agency to make a false statement regarding the applicant; the applicant/accused has thus been falsely implicated in the present case.
8.That there is not even an iota of evidence collected by the investigating officer to show that the applicant/accused committed the murder of the deceased. Even prima facie, there is nothing on record to indicate the commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC.
9.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 conclusion of the trial, as the accused/applicant is an innocent person who has not committed any offence whatsoever.
10.That the applicant is filing the present bail application before this Hon'ble Court on, amongst others, the following grounds, which are taken without prejudice to one another:-
11.That there is no evidence on record which can be tampered with by the accused in any manner.
12.That there is no presumption, nor any basis for assuming, that the statement of the complainant is always correct or free from embellishment or exaggeration.
13.That the accused shall always remain available to submit himself to the custody of the Court at any point of time. It is a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is deemed innocent until held guilty.
14.That it may not be out of context to point out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 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 that it has been stated time and again that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has further been observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
15.That in the case of [State of Rajasthan v. 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 Baren once every fortnight."
16.That in the case of Siddharam Satlingoppa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the 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."
17.That the trial of the case will take a long time to conclude, and no useful purpose will be served by keeping the applicant/accused in custody.
18.That there is no good reason to detain the accused in custody, particularly after the completion of the investigation and the filing of the charge-sheet, the framing of charges and the recording of the statement of the prosecutrix. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784, has held 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."
19.That the grant or refusal of bail lies within the discretion of the Court, and the grant or denial thereof 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 on account 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 in custody pending trial, and, at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, so as to ensure that he submits to the jurisdiction of the Court and remains in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.
20.That the accused/applicant is a young person with clean antecedents, having no influence over the prosecution witnesses, and there is no likelihood of his tampering with the prosecution evidence.
21.That, as per the jurisprudence of bail, the aim is to achieve a balance between personal liberty and social security; however, the detention of the accused during the period of trial should be avoided. A first-time offender with no criminal antecedents is to be considered separately. The object of detention is primarily to secure the presence of the accused at the time of trial and to ensure that he appears before the Court to receive sentence, if awarded. However, where the accused has deep roots in society, his pre-trial detention ought to be avoided.
22.That the applicant/accused is ready and willing to furnish surety to the entire satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court.
23.That it is respectfully submitted that the applicant/accused has a completely clean record. The applicant/accused has never been convicted in any case in the past. It cannot, under any circumstances, be construed that the applicant/accused has a bad antecedent which would suggest that he is likely to commit similar or more serious offences while on bail.
24.That Section 439 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, or of the commission of which he is suspected.
25.That the accused has deep roots in society, and there is absolutely no chance of the accused absconding from the course of justice or tampering with the evidence.
26.That the accused has already been incarcerated for more than six months.
27.That no useful purpose would be served by continuing to keep the applicant in custody during the pendency of the trial, and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
(a)Grant bail to the applicant and release the applicant on bail in FIR FIR number under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station Police station, Delhi, in the interest of justice, and on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPLICANT SHALL EVER REMAIN GRATEFUL AND FOREVER PRAY.
DELHIAPPLICANT
THROUGH
DATED:
Date of application
ADVOCATES
Address of the advocates' chamber