0% found this document useful (0 votes)
256 views7 pages

Yameen v. Rahul Bail Application

Rahul @Kala @Babu has applied for bail in the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Sonam Singh. He is accused under section 307 IPC in FIR no. 75/2023 registered at PS Badarpur. Rahul claims the allegations are false and fabricated. He undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and not interfere with witnesses. Rahul argues he has been in custody for over 4 months and further custody will serve no purpose. He cites past court judgments stating the principle of bail and presumption of innocence to request that bail be granted.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
256 views7 pages

Yameen v. Rahul Bail Application

Rahul @Kala @Babu has applied for bail in the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Sonam Singh. He is accused under section 307 IPC in FIR no. 75/2023 registered at PS Badarpur. Rahul claims the allegations are false and fabricated. He undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and not interfere with witnesses. Rahul argues he has been in custody for over 4 months and further custody will serve no purpose. He cites past court judgments stating the principle of bail and presumption of innocence to request that bail be granted.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS.

SONAM SINGH, HON’BLE


ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. _____/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:

Yameen @Yemin Sk …. COMPLAINANT

VERSUS
Rahul @ Kala @Babu …APPLICANT/ACCUSED

MEMO OF PARTIES

Yameen @Yemin Sk …COMPLAINANT


S/o Yusuf @ Yesab Sk
R/o C-757, Gautampuri Phase-2, Badarpur, New Delhi

Versus

Rahul @Kala @Babu


S/o Ajooba @Ajuuba Sheikh
R/o B-619, Gautampuri, Phase 2, Badarpur,
New Delhi- 44
and
Village Kalikapur, Post Jafrabad, PS Lalbagh,
Distt Murshidabad, West Bengal. ...APPLICANT/ACCUSED

Through
AMR & ASSOCIATES
(Advocates for the Accused)
Chamber No. 181, Lawyer’s
Chamber Block, Saket Court Complex. Ph.
No.: 9810212052
New Delhi
Date:

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS. SONAM SINGH, HON’BLE


ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO._________/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
Yameen @Yemin Sk …COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Rahul @Kala @Babu …..APPLICANT/ACCUSED

F.I.R NO. 75/2023


U/s: 307 IPC
P.S: BADARPUR

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT FOR GRANT


OF REGULAR BAIL UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present FIR has been registered on false and bogus facts. The
facts stated in the FIR are fabricated, concocted and without any basis.
The copy of E-FIR is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A for kind
perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

2. That the applicant/accused is 27-year-old and applicant/accused is a


garbage picker.

3. That the Complainant and the police have falsely implicated the
Applicant in the present case. The Applicant is respectable & law-abiding
citizens of India, residing permanently at the above noted address.

4. That the allegations levelled by the Complainant and the contents of the
FIR are totally false and are concocted just to harass the Applicant.
5. That the Applicants is not required in any kind of custodial interrogation.
That the Applicant/accused is willing to join the investigation and co-
operate with the police.

6. That in view of the above, the instant bail application on behalf of the
applicant should be accepted on the following grounds-

(i) BECAUSE the Applicant is the permanent citizen of Delhi and will not
try to leave/evade from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

(ii) BECAUSE the Applicant have no chances of his absconding from the
course of justice.

(iii) BECAUSE the Applicant undertake to present himself before the


police/Court as and when directed.

(iv) BECAUSE the Applicant undertakes that he will not, directly or


indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

(v) BECAUSE the Applicant further undertakes not to tamper with the
evidence or the witnesses in any manner.

(vi) BECAUSE the Applicant shall not leave India without the permission of
the Court.

(vii) BECAUSE the Applicant has been in Judicial Custody for more than
four months and that his custody serves no purpose for the Hon’ble Court.

(viii) BECAUSE it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in


Dataram Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh (S.L.P Crl. No. 151/2018)
that:

“A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of


innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until
found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a
reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific
offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the
fundamental postulate in respect of other offences.
Bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in
a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an
exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have
been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being
incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our
criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

(ix) BECAUSE in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation


reported as (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
crystallized the law in respect of regular bail in the following paragraphs:

“In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest
times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused
person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is
neither punitive nor preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered
a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will
stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal
respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that
every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty.

From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody


pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From
time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be
held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in
such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be
quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the
Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter,
upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he
should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper
with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary
circumstances.

Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail,
one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before
conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper
for any court to refuse bail as mark of disapproval of former conduct
whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refused bail to
an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of
imprisonment as a lesson.

The provisions of CrPC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal


courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against
convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised
with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of
an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the
reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the
High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of
law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the
requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found
guilty. If such power is recognized, then it may lead to chaotic situation
and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual.”

(x) In H.B. Chaturvedi vs C.B.I. reported as 2010 3 JCC 2109 in paragraph


12 thereof, this Hon’ble Court observed as follows:-

“12. Bail, it has been held in a catena of decisions, is not to be withheld


as a punishment. Even assuming that the accused is prima facie guilty of
a grave offence, bail cannot be refused in an indirect process of
punishing the accused person before he is convicted. Furthermore, there
is no justification for classifying offences into different categories such as
economic offences and for refusing bail on ground that the offence
involved belongs to a particular category. It cannot, therefore, be said
that bail should invariably be refused in cases involving serious
economic offence.”

(xi) BECAUSE the Applicant is ready and willing to accept any other
conditions as may be imposed by the Court or the police in connection
with the case.

That no other/similar bail application is pending in any other court of law.


The Applicant/Accused has not filed any other/further application for
grant of bail in any other court of law.
PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that this
Hon’ble Court may direct the release of the Applicant on bail.

Applicant
Through
AMR & ASSOCIATES
(Advocates for the Accused)
Chamber No. 181, Lawyer’s Chambers Block,
Saket Court Complex. Ph. No.: 9810212052

New Delhi
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS. SONAM SINGH, HON’BLE
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO._________/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
Yameen @Yemin Sk …. COMPLAINANT

VERSUS
Rahul @ Kala @Babu …APPLICANT/ACCUSED

AFFIDAVIT
I, Rahul @Kala @ Babu S/o Sh. Ajooba @Ajuba Sheikh, R/o B-619,
Gautampuri, Phase 2, Badarpur, New Delhi- 44 and Village Kalikapur,
Post Jafrabad, PS Lalbagh, Distt Murshidabad, West Bengal, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am Perokar for Applicant/Accused in the above noted case and
well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present case.

2. That the accompanying application U/s 439 of Cr.P.C. has been drafted
by my counsel, the same has been understood by me and I admit them as
correct. The contents thereof be read as part and parcel of this affidavit as
the same are not being of this affidavit as the same are not being repeated
herein for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this_____ day of ________, 2023 that the
contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH. AVIRAL SHUKHLA,
HON’BLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO._________/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
Yameen @Yemin Sk ….COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Rahul @Kala @Babu …..APPLICANT/ACCUSED

F.I.R NO. 75/2023


U/s: 307 IPC
P.S: Badarpur
INDEX
S.No. PARTICULARS PAGES
1. Memo of Parties
2. Application on behalf of the Applicant for
grant of Anticipatory Bail under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
alongwith affidavit
3. ANNEXURE A
Copy of FIR
4. Vakalatnama
Through

AMR & ASSOCIATES


(Advocates for the Accused)
Chamber No. 181, Lawyer’s
Chamber Block, Saket Court Complex. Ph.
No.: 9810212052

New Delhi
Date: 31.01.2023

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy