0

IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJRANI, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

(NORTH-WEST DISTRICT), ROHINI COURT, DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. ………… OF 2019
In
S.C. NO. 390 OF 2019

IN RE :
STATE … COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
LALIT @ LALLI AND ANR. … ACCUSED

FIR NO. 1116/2018 dt. 03.12.2018

P.S. Mangolpuri U/s. 307/ 34 IPC
L.D.H before M.M.: 23.04.2019
N.D.H before M.M.: 15.05.2019

INDEX
S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES C.FEE
1. FOURTH BAIL APPLICATION 1-13
UNDER SECTION 439 CRPC ON
BEHALF OF ACCUSED LALIT @
LALLI ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT.
2. ANNEXURE-P/1 14 – 15
THE COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED 04.04.2019 IN 3RD BAIL
APPL. NO. 823/2019 PASSED BY
THE LD. SESSIONS JUDGE,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, DELHI
WHEREBY GIVING INTERIM BAIL
TO THE ACCUSED I.E. LALLIT @
LALLI
3. ANNEXURE-P/2 16 - 22
COPY OF MEDICAL REPORT OF
APPLICANT’S FATHER.
4. VAKALATNAMA 23
APPLICANT/ ACCUSED

THROUGH

--- COUNSEL ---

KAMAL SINGH
Office: B-18, Vikram Nagar,
Date : 24.04.2019 Ferozshah kotla, Delhi-110002
Place: New Delhi M: +91-7017249223
 1

IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJRANI, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

(NORTH-WEST DISTRICT), ROHINI COURT, DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. ………… OF 2019
In
S.C. NO. 390 OF 2019

IN RE :
STATE … COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

LALIT @ LALLI AND ANR. … ACCUSED

FIR NO. 1116/2018

DATED. 03.12.2018
P.S. MANGOLPURI
U/S. 307 & 34 IPC

On Interim Bail since: 04.04.2018

Expiring on: 26.04.2019

BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.P.C. ON BEHALF

OF APPLICANT/ ACCUSED I.E. LALIT @ LALLI IN THE
ABOVEMENTIONED MATTER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. The present Application for Bail is being filed under Section 439 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the grant of bail in

S.C. no. 1410 of 2019 which is pending trial before this hon’ble

court.

2. That the Bail Applicant/ Accused herein is filing the fourth Bail

Application before this Hon’ble Court.

3. That it is pertinent to mention here that the Applicant/ Accused is

currently on interim bail and was released on 05.04.2019 and this

Interim bail will expire on 26.04.2019. The copy of the Release

 2

order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, North-

West District, Delhi whereby giving interim bail to the

Applicant /accused is annexed herein and marked as

ANNEXURE- P/1.

4. That the Applicant/ accused has spent four months in Judicial

custody.

5. That the alleged Actual accused persons have also been arrested

and are under Judicial Custody.

6. It is respectfully submitted that as per the Chargesheet the

prosecution had registered the FIR no. 1116 of 2019 on

03.12.2019 at around 07:30 pm on the basis of D.D. entry no.

63A dt. 03.12.2018, when HC Surender informed the Police

station Mangolpuri over telephone from the Sanjay Gandhi

Hospital that one injured person Rajeev (25 Yrs.) vide (MLC no.

19177/2019) brought to the Hospital. And subsequently police

registered the aforementioned FIR against Unknown Persons.

Later on 04.12.2019, police arrested the applicant accused and

implicated him into the present case, collected evidence, recorded

statement of witnesses and filed the aforementioned chargesheet

in positive requesting commencement of trial.

7. It is respectfully submitted that no any weapon or article allegedly

used in the crime was recovered from the possession of the Bail

Applicant/ Accused herein and was neither recovered during the

investigation.
 3

8. That the Bail Applicant/ Accused was arrested in the

abovementioned case on 04.12.2019 and remained in Police

Custody till he was produced before the Magistrate Concerned the

next day i.e. 05.12.2018 and was given to the Police Remand upon

the request made by them for one day i.e. till 06.12.2019 and on

06.12.2019 Ld. M.M. took him into Judicial Custody and was sent

to Jail and since then he is in Judicial Custody.

9. Now the chronology of events that took place after the Registration

of FIR :-

S.No Event Time

1. Registration of FIR At Around 7:30 PM
on 03.12.2018
2. Police called Accused i.e. Lalit overAt Around 8:00 PM
phone and asked to visit Police on 03.12.2018
station to gather information
regarding the whereabout of main
Accused in the above said alleged
incident as they known to Applicant/
Accused.
3. Police Illegally Arrested Applicant/ On 03.12.2018
Accused without a Arrest Memo and
kept in Police station.
4. Police conducted two raids to catch At around 01:30
Alleged main Accused persons on the AM on 04.12.2018
information given by the Applicant/
Accused but police failed to nab
them.
5. Accused/ Applicant was Kept 03.12.2018in -
Police station Lockup 05.12.2018
6. Accused/ Applicant was produced 05.12.2018
before this hon’ble court and was
given to Police Remand for one day
7. Accused/ Applicant was sent 06.12.2018to
Judicial Custody
8. Still in Judicial Custody since then
 4

10. That the prosecution has mentioned previous involvement of

the Applicant/ accused in the present chargesheet. It is submitted

that all the cases in which Bail Applicant/ Accused’s name has

appeared are disposed off resulting in acquittals beyond doubt or

has been compromised as per law and few pending cases are also

going to close very soon.

11. That the police arrested the Applicant/ Accused on

Assumptions and Surmises and on the pretext that the actual

accused Persons were known to Applicant/ Accused.

12. It is submitted that the Bail Applicant/ Accused is innocent

in the instant case and has been falsely implicated on the basis of

a statement of an accused in the case. The Bail Applicant/

Accused was implicated just because the actual accused were

known to him and when this alleged incident occurred,

subsequently crowd was gathered around police station

Mangolpuri and till that time no one was arrested, hence to keep

the crowd calm police arrested the Bail Applicant/ Accused and

implicated in the present Criminal case. The Bail Applicant/

Accused is being arrested on the sole premise of doubt without

having any corroborative material whatsoever.

13. It is respectfully submitted that the prosecution has

submitted the chargesheet and arrested alleged actual persons

and are under Judicial custody and have taken statement under

section 161 of Victim and all the witnesses and the crime weapon

has not been recovered yet.

 5

14. That it is pertinent to mention here that the parents of the

Bail Applicant/ Accused are old age and heart patient. That the

Applicant’s father has a history of prolonged illness and the

medical record of the patient shows that he was suffering from it

much before the incident in the present criminal case and still

persists The copy of the Medical Report of Applicant’s father

showing prolonged illness are annexed and mark herein as

Annexure- P/2

15. That the Bail Applicant/ Accused submits that his Sister’s

Marriage has been solemnized on 20 th April, 2019 and there is no

one to take care of packup management of marriage as his

parents are old age and heart patient and Applicant accused is the

Sole son of their parents.

16. In light of the above, the Bail Applicant/ Accused’s case is to

be viewed Sympathetically.

GROUNDS

The Bail Applicant/ Accused therefore humbly prays before this

Hon’ble Court for grant of Bail on following grounds –

A. that the FIR was registered against Unknown and the Bail

Applicant herein was not named in the FIR and the same was

added later.

B. that the Bail Applicant is Innocent and has been falsely

implicated in the instant case because the police was under

the impression that the applicant is known to actual accused

 6

persons so they called the Applicant over phone to gather

information and whereabout of actual accused persons. On the

other hand, the family members and crowd of 20-25 people

gathered around the police station over Police inaction and

their inablity to arrest the actual accused persons/

perpetrators. So the police was under pressure and hence, to

keep the crowd calm they arrested the Applicant herein and

implicated him into the case who was initially called just for

some inquiry purpose.

It is submitted that in the landmark judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012)1 SCC, 40

case Hon’ble Court held that-“Seriousness of the charge not

the only relevant factor while considering Bail application.”

Hon”ble Supreme Court also held that- “Right to Bail is not to

be denied merely because of the sentiment of the community

against the accused.” Hon”ble Supreme Court categorically

held that –“Article 21 violated when under trial prisoners are

detained in jail custody to an indefinite period.”

C. that the Applicant herein is totally innocent and has falsely

been implicated by the Police, to get the whereabout of alleged

Actual Accused persons just because the Accused persons

were allegedly known to him.

D. That the Applicant herein submitted that he did not even know

neither the actual accused persons nor the Injured/ Victim

 7

and hence there was no enmity between the Injured/ Victim

and the Bail Applicant

E. that the Bail Applicant/ Accused/accused was not even

present at the spot of incidence at that time and thus did not

know anything about the alleged incident and only got to know

when he was called over phone much after the incident for

enquiry purpose and was kept in police station and

subsequently arrested.

F. that no eye witnesses were present at the time of alleged

incident.

G. that no weapon has been recovered from the possession of the

Bail Applicant and even no weapon has been recovered by

investigating officer during his police custody which was

allegedly used in the instant case which is a substantial piece

of evidence which could co-relate the commission offence by

the Bail Applicant.

H. that No any Grievous injury has been caused on the vital part

of victim nor grievous in motive nor dangerous to life and All

injuries are very simple and so the Offence, hence 307 IPC is

not madeout at all but only 324 IPC may be madeout which is

triable by magistrate.

I. It is respectfully submitted that Victim/ injured was conscious

at the time of admission in hospital and remained during

treatment.
 8

J. It is respectfully submitted that as per the Prosecution the Role

of the Applicant in the instant case is that the Applicant

caught hold of the Victim i.e., Rajeev during when he was

allegedly Injured by the actual accused. In the humble

submission of the Bail Applicant, the allegations are wrong

because the statement of Victim under section 161 was

obtained after the arrest of the Bail Applicant and which is

even recorded not on the actual statement of the victim but

which was already framed by the police and made part of the

Investigation, so as to look everything in place. And this

allegation do not stand scrutiny of law as an statement given

before the police by any person or witness is not at all

admissible in evidence, and under no circumstances can be a

ground to implicate a person in such an offence. Therefore,

there is no substance in the allegations levelled by the

prosecution and the whole story of prosecution is based on

concocted facts.

K. It is respectfully submitted that even if believing the

prosecution’s story to be true, the injuries have not been

inflicted by the Bail Applicant.

L. It is respectfully submitted that the Bail Applicant is a young

person in his early twenties and no purpose will be served by

keeping him with the hardened criminals. He has deep roots in

the society and there is no chance of his absconding from the

law so also there are no chances that the Bail Applicant will
 9

interfere with the course of justice in any manner. Keeping in

view of the above submissions, Applicant craves for a

sympathetic consideration by this Hon’ble Court.

M. It is respectfully submitted that the Gravity and nature of

offence and the previous involvement of the Bail Applicant, the

offence under section 307 is not made out at all and only 324

IPC may be made out as the nature of injuries are simple. And

secondly, the Bail Applicant/ Accused’s is acquitted beyond

doubt or came out without conviction in all the cases where his

previous involvement is shown by the police and are now

closed and few are pending. Despite having no evidence and no

role being attributed to the Bail Applicant into the alleged

offence, the Bail Applicant has been implicated in the instant

case and the prosecution has stated aforesaid submissions

knowing that mostly cases are closed and disposed off and in

none of the cases the Bail Applicant is convicted but on the

other hand he is acquitted beyond doubt and came out clean

handed. The prosecution had deliberately made those

statements and allegations in order to amplify the scope of

allegations against the Bail Applicant in the instant case.

N. It is submitted that the Bail Applicant/ Accused had

cooperated with the investigation of the police completely and

further undertakes to fully cooperate with the investigation in

future also. And, there is nothing on record to state that the

Bail Applicant/ Accused will tamper with the witness in the

 10

present case and there is also absolutely no apprehension that

the Bail Applicant/ Accused will abscond from justice. So,

there is no need for Judicial Custody of the Bail Applicant/

Accused. The Apex Court in the case of “Sanjay Chandra v.

CBI, (2012) 2 SCC 40”, held that bail is a right, and jail an

exception, and that pre-conviction incarceration is contrary to

the principles of liberty enshrined in the constitution. Further,

the Bail Applicant/ Accused has been in custody for almost 2

Months, and no purpose is presently being served by his

continuing in custody. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2019 in “Dataram Singh v.

State of UP”, held:

“2. 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. Yet another

important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the

grant of 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 rule that more and more
 11

persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods.

This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence

or to our society.”

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the Hon’ble

Court considering the application for bail, ought to take the

following aspects into consideration, and held:

“5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be

adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application

for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police

custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons

for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused

person, howsoever poor that person might be, the

requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the

fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons,

leading to social and other problems as noticed by this

Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons.”

O. It is respectfully submitted that the Bail Applicant/ Accused

herein has no previous Conviction in any criminal case, and

has fully cooperated with the investigation.

Without prejudice to the above submissions, it is respectfully

submitted that the Bail Applicant will be regular and punctual

in his attendance before the Hon’ble Trial Court as well as

before Investigating Agency and further undertake to abide by

all terms and conditions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
 12

and proper to impose under the facts and circumstances of the

case.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may kindly be pleased to –

i. To grant a regular bail to the Applicant/ Accused, under

Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. in the present case i.e. SC no.

390 of 2019

ii. Any other relief which this court deems fit and proper

under the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in

favour of the Bail Applicant/ Accused in the interest of

justice.

Applicant/accused (on Interim

Bail )

Through

--- COUNSEL ---

Date : 25.04.2019
Place: New Delhi
KAMAL SINGH
ADVOCATE
Office: B-18, Vikram Nagar,
Ferozshah kotla, Delhi-110002
M: +91-7017249223
 13

IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJRANI, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

(NORTH-WEST DISTRICT), ROHINI COURT, DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. ………… OF 2019
In
S.C. NO. 390 OF 2019

IN RE :
STATE … COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

LALIT @ LALLI AND ANR. … ACCUSED

AFFIDAVIT

I, Lalit @ Lalli S/o Mr. Ajay Kumar aged about 24 Yrs., R/o G-741,
42, Mangolpuri, North-west Delhi- 110083, delhi do here by
solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
1. That I am the Applicant/ Accused/ in the above noted case
and presently on Interim bail till 26.04.2019.
2. That the present application for the grant of bail U/s 439
Cr.PC before the Ld. Sessions Court, Delhi has been drafted
by the counsel under my instruction and the contents of the
application are true and correct to my knowledge and the
same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit as the
same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

Deponent
Verification :-
Verified at Delhi on this …… day of April, 2019
that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct
 14

to my knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material

has been concealed therefrom.

Deponent