You are on page 1of 4


In the Matter of :
1. Dr. Swaroop Sinha,

Cardiologist,Medical director,
Ullal Nagar,Malnad.
2. Mrs. Shakeela Swaroop Sinha,
w/o.Dr. Swaroop Sinha,
Ullal Nagar,


State of Malnad
rep by Superintendent of Police,
Ullal Nagar.



Most Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the present application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is
being filed by the Petitioner for seeking grant of bail in FIR No.007/2016 registered at
Ullal Nagar Police Station.

2. The present petition is being moved as the Petitioner has been arrested on 15/01/2016 in
connection with the said FIR. The petitioner is now in judicial custody.
3. That the Petitioner is innocent and is being falsely implicated in the above said case as he
has nothing to do with the matter.
4. That the Petitioner is a law abiding citizen of India. The petitioner is a well known
cardiologist and is working as Medical Director in the Kaul Hospital and Research
Centre owned by the deceased Dr. Smitha Kaul at the heart of the city of Ullal Nagar.
5. That the Petitioner is a responsible person and is living at the above mentioned address.
6. That the petitioner is a well known cardiologist and his opinion has a high degree of
acceptance throughout the city of Ullal Nagar. The deceased Dr. Smitha Kaul and the first
petitioner Dr. Swaroop Sinha had a closefriendship from college days. The first petitioner
as well as the deceased Dr. Smithas close friendly relationship was well known by the
persons at the hospital. The first petitioner Dr. Swaroop Sinha is married to the second
petitioner Mrs. Shakeela, and they have a small son. Both the petitioner led a happy life.
Though the second petitioner Mrs. Shakeela had doubts in the relationship of her husband
and the deceased , it did not affect the happiness in the family which shows the innocence
of the second petitioner and she is not having any kind of quarrels with her husband (i.e)
the first petitioner Dr. Swaroop Sinha. On 15/01/2016, Dr. Smitha Kaul did not attend the
hospital. After being informed by the Hospital superintendent, the first petitioner Dr.
Swaroop Sinha himself deputed a staff and as soon as the staff reported to him that the
door was locked and there was no response , the first petitioner Dr. Swaroop Sinha
reported the police about the issue. If the petitioner is the murderer he would have not
informed about such issue to the police himself . Being such a persons of responsibility
and innocence and a well known cardiologist in the city , both the petitioner could not be
involved such a brutel murder.
7. That the Petitioner is innocent and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him
under custody and this is a fit case for grant of bail. In the investigation conducted by the
police , they found some cash, chequebook, and other valuable documents were stolen by

breaking open the almirah from the residence. The petitioner is a person having a good
reputation and he being a well known cardiologist and the director of the hospital, there is
no need of money. The theft of cash and other valuable bank documents clearly shows
that the murder could have been commited for cash. On further investigation, the police
recovered a revolver covered in a newspaper near the entrance of the petitioners house.
The ballistic experts found out that the deceased Dr. Smitha Kaul was killed by the bullet
that was fired from the revolver licensed to Dr. Smitha Kaul, which was recovered near
the house of the petitioner. On a common parlance no murderer would throw away the
weapon which he used for commission of offence would throw that near his place of
residence . He would have destroyed the evidence . But in this case the petitioner did not
do so. This throws light on the fact that both the petitioner would not have commited the
murder. A person knowing the reputation of the first petitioner Dr. Swaroop Sinha have
intentionally commited this crime and looted the wealth of the deceased and also ruptured
the reputation of the petitioners.

That the Petitioner undertakes to abide by the conditions that this Honorable Court may
impose at the time of granting bail to the Petitioner and further undertakes to attend the
trial on every date of hearing.

9. That the Petitioner has not filed any other similar petition before this or any other
Honorable Court for grant of bail in case of the present FIR.

In view of the above stated facts and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this
Honorable Court may be pleased to


Grant bail to the Petitioner in connection with FIR No.007/2016 registered under section
302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 , for the offence of murder at Police Station of Ullal


Pass any other such order as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice.