IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF LALA LAND

Crl. Misc.-M-No.___________ of 2021

MEMO OF PARTIES

Rahul Nath aged about 30 years son of Sh. Aman Nath R/o House No. 226, Lala

Land

….…. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Lala Land

…......Respondent

Lala Land

Dated: 12.07.2021
 (Aishani Pattanaik)
P/595/2003
Advocates
Counsel for the Petitioner
 First Regular Bail petition under Sections 439 CrPC

seeking regular bail for the petitioner in case FIR No.

156 dated 12.07.2021, under sections 302 IPC,

registered at police station Sector 34, Lala Land

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the petitioner is an innocent law-abiding citizen, and was erroneously

implicated in the present FIR, thus is soliciting the concession of regular bail

during the pendency of trial in case FIR No. 156 dated 12.07.2021. The true

translated copy of FIR No. 05 dated 12.07.2021 is annexed herewith as

Annexure P-1.

2. That the brief facts necessary for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court are

as follows:- The present FIR was registered against the petitioner on the

Complaint of respondent No.2 Ms. Seeta Kishan (wife of the deceased Mr.

Ravi Kishan) who alleged that her husband Mr Ravi who left home for

attending a religious gathering at Godabanda Temple on the evening of 10 th

July, 2021 didn’t return home the entire night. Having gotten worried about

her husband’s well-being and whereabouts Ms. Seeta tried reaching out to

his friends, however nobody picked up her calls at such an early hour in the

morning. Having no other alternative Ms. Seeta left for the Godabanda
 Temple in search of her husband wherein she found out that her husband

who was present in the temple the entire night had left the temple premises

by the time the priest woke up at 4 AM in the morning. On a thorough

search around the vicinity of the temple, Ms Seeta discovered the body of

her husband chopped into several pieces

3. That the perusal of FIR would reveal that the petitioner is not named in the

FIR, neither any specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and on top of that

no substantive evidence pivotal to the offence of murder such as Murder weapon,

Traces of DNA ( such as fingerprints, hair or other physical traces at the crime

scene) has been retrieved which can implicate the accused beyond reasonable

doubt or in the least establish his nexus to the alleged offence

4. That the petitioner was arrayed as accused in the present FIR on the basis of

a CCTV footage which is the sole evidence in the present case without any

corroboration. The printed image captured in the CCTV footage is annexed herein

as Annexure-P2. The petitioner Mr. Rahul Nath was last seen with the deceased

and this was captured by a camera infront of the ATM on the opposite side of the

road of the temple. However, this isn’t sufficient to implicate the petitioner and

prove his culpability under Section 302 of IPC. The “last seen theory” as a facet of

circumstantial evidence is a weak kind of evidence and is taken into consideration

when no evidence is recovered after the investigation and it is purely based on

assumption that the person last seen together with the deceased has a reason to

commit the crime; However, the circumstance of “last seen together” does not by

itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed

the crime. It is pertinent to note that the application of the “last seen theory”

without proper corroboration by ocular evidences or DNA traces or any other

substantive piece of evidence isn’t sufficient to implicate the accused and

nevertheless lock him up in prison curtailing his personal liberty

5. That the petitioner shared an amicable bond with the deceased who himself

was in good terms with everyone and barely had any foes thus there exists no

history of previous enmity between the accused and the deceased. In-fact the

manner of death wherein the body of the deceased was chopped into pieces is

prima facie indicative of a premeditation in addition to a spiteful and hostile

relationship with the deceased. The accused herein shared a cordial relation with

the deceased, and no prima facie evidence suggesting hostility or premeditation to

commit such a gruesome act has been retrieved yet by the IO.

6. Furthermore, on the night of 10.07.2021 the Respondent No.2 overheard the

deceased having an altercation with someone over the phone. However, on perusal

of the call details it was found that one of the last three calls did originate from the

accused, but the duration of the call was barely 30-40 seconds. So, it is absolutely
preposterous on the prosecution’s part to conclude that it was Rahul Nath with

whom the deceased had a bitter spat thus leading to major discord.

7. That apart, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and is a bonafide

citizen with immaculate criminal records, a careful perusal of the facts,

circumstances and evidence nowhere ascertains the indulgence of the accused in

the commission of the offence. Moreover, the accused has a humble background

with barely any social influence or commanding position in the society thereby

dispelling all the reasonable apprehensions that the accused on release may tamper

with evidence or coerce or intimidate the witnesses in any manner. Additionally,

the chances of the petitioner fleeing the course of justice is also remote given his

humble background with no criminal antecedents and social supremacy.

8. That the petitioner not being a previous offender may kindly be considered

to be enlarged on regular bail keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the

present case and the prevailing situation of Covid-19 pandemic.

9. That petitioner is not a previous convict nor is he declared wanted by the

police in any other case.

10. That petitioner undertakes that he will not tamper with any evidence of the

prosecution nor he would directly, or indirectly, make the inducement, threat or

promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

11. That the petitioner also undertakes that he will not leave the territory of

India, without prior permission of this Hon’ble Court.

12. That the petitioner will not misuse concession of bail and will abide by the

terms and conditions of this Hon’ble Court.

13. That the petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of this

Hon’ble Court.

14. That no such or similar petition has earlier been filed by the petitioner either

in this Hon'ble Court or in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

15. That no such or similar petition with regard to the present FIR is pending

before the Court of Sessions at the time of filing the present petition.

16. Whether the petitioner was/is accused in any other case(s) registered against

him anywhere in India? NO

17. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be

allowed and the petitioner may kindly be granted regular bail in case FIR No. 156

dated 12/07/2021, under Section 302 IPC, registered at police station of Lala Land,

in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

18. It is further prayed that that during the pendency of the present petitioner,

the petitioner may kindly be granted ad-interim bail, in the interest of justice,

equity and fair play.

19. It is further prayed that the petitioner may kindly be exempted from filing

the legible, certified and true typed copies of the Annexures, as the case may be, in

the interest of justice.

Note: Affidavit is not required

Lala Land
Dated: 15.07.2021

Aishani Pattanaik
P/595/2003
Advocate
Counsels for the Petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, AT

CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc.-M-No.___________ of 2021

Dilpreet Singh
(Presently confined in Model Jail Burail Chandigarh)

…. Petitioner

Versus
State of Punjab

...Respondent
INDEX
Sr. Particulars Date Pages Court fee
No
Urgent Form 14.07.2021 A ---
1. Petition Under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 14.07.2021 1-6 ---
2. Annexure P-1 12.07.2021 7-10 ---
(Copy of FIR N0.05)
3. A photocopy of the CCTV Image

VERNACULAR
3. Annexure P-1 (Copy of FIR) 12.07.2020 35-40 --
4. Power of Attorney - 52 ---
Total Court Fees:- Nil
Lala Land
Dated: 14.07.2021

Aishani Pattanaik
P/595/2003
Advocates
Counsels for the Petitioner