IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF :

Lalit @ Lalli …….APPLICANT/

ACCUSED

VERSUS

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) …..RESPONDENT

INDEX

S.NO. Particular Page No.

1. Notice of Motion
2. Urgent Application
3. Court Fee
4. Memo Of Parties
5. First bail application U/s 439 CR. PC
with affidavit
6. Annexure-1:- Certified copy of order
dated 24.12.2018 passed by Ld. ASJ
(03) North West Rohini New Delhi
7. Annexure-2:- True Copy of FIR No.
1116/2018 Dated 03.12.2018 in P.S.
Mangolpuri alongwith Translated copy.
8. Annexure-3: True copy of Order dated
18.12.2018 passed by MM North West
Rohini New Delhi
9. Annexure-4:- True Internet copy of
Status cases of the Applicant/ Accused
10. Annexure-5:- True copy of Medical
reports father of Applicant/ Accused
11. Annexure-6:- True copy of Photo
Graphs of Roka Ceremony and
 Marriage Hall Booking Receipt.
12. CRL.M.A_______ 2019
Application under section 482 CR.PC
for exemption of certified copy of
annexures /left side margin with
affidavit.
13. Vakalatnama

--- Through ---

KAMAL SINGH
Advocate for the Applicant
Apartment no. 403, PVC-15,
Jaypee Geens, Sector-128
Noida, Uttar Pradesh
Mobile No. 7017249223
legalclawsindia@gmail.com

Place: Delhi
Date: 23.01.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF :

Lalit @ Lalli ……APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) …..RESPONDENT

MEMO OF PARTIES

FIR NO.: 1116/2018

DATED : 03.12.2018
P.S.: MANGOLPURI
U/S.: 307 IPC
In J. C.: Since 06.12.2018
Lalit @ Lalli
S/O Ajay Kumar
R/o G-741, 42, Mangolpuri,
North-west Delhi- 110083
Presently at Judicial Custody …Applicant/
Accused

VERSUS

The State (NCT of Delhi)

Through Standing Counsel
Delhi High Court
New Delhi …Respondent

--- Through ---

KAMAL SINGH
Advocate for the Applicant
Apartment no. 403, PVC-15,
Jaypee Geens, Sector-128
Noida, Uttar Pradesh
Mobile No. 7017249223
legalclawsindia@gmail.com

Place: Delhi
Date: 23.01.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF :

Lalit @ Lalli …. APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) …. RESPONDENT

NOTICE OF MOTION

Dear Sir,

Enclosed please find herewith a complete set of Petition

in the above mentioned matter. The case is likely to come

up before the Hon'ble Court on 21.01.2019

--- Through ---

KAMAL SINGH
Advocate for the Bail Applicant/ Accused
Apartment no. 403, PVC-15,
Jaypee Geens, Sector-128
Noida, Uttar Pradesh
Mobile No. 7017249223
legalclawsindia@gmail.com

Place: Delhi
Date: 23.01.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF :

Lalit @ Lalli …….APPLICANT/

ACCUSED

VERSUS

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) …..RESPONDENT

The Registrar,
High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi.

URGENT APPLICATION.

Dear Sir,

Please treat the above matter urgent because accused is

in Judicial since 06.12.2018

Please list the matter on day of January, 2019.

--- Through ---

KAMAL SINGH
Advocate for the Applicant
Apartment no. 403, PVC-15,
Jaypee Geens, Sector-128
Noida, Uttar Pradesh
Mobile No. 7017249223
legalclawsindia@gmail.com

Place: Delhi
Date: 23.01.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF :

Lalit @ Lalli …….APPLICANT/

ACCUSED

VERSUS

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) RESPONDENT

FIR NO.: 1116/2018

DATED : 03.12.2018
P.S.: MANGOLPURI
U/S.: 307 IPC
In J. C.: Since 06.12.2018

FIRST APPLICATION FOR REGULAR BAIL UNDER

SECTION 439 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
1973.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present Application for Bail is being filed under

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 [hereinafter referred to as “the Cr. P.C.”],

seeking the grant of bail in FIR No. 1116 of 2019

dated 03.12.2019 for offence under Section 307 of

the IPC and against the order dated 24.12.2018 of

the Sessions Court, North-West district Dismissing

the Bail Application no. 4277/2018 of the Bail

Applicant/ Accused herein. A copy of the Impugned

 order dated 24.12.2018 is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure -1.

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

First Bail Application before this Hon’ble Court.

3. It is respectfully submitted that the Bail Applicant/

Accused is in Judicial Custody since 06.12.2018

and the Chargesheet has not yet been filed and the

investigation is still going on, though the alleged

Actual accused persons has been arrested and are

under Judicial Custody.

4. It is respectfully submitted that the prosecution had

registered the FIR no. 1116 of 2019 on 03.12.2019

at around 07:30 pm 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

FIR no.1116 of 2019 against the Unknown. A true

translated Copy of the FIR is annexed herewith and

marked as Annexure 2.

5. That the Bail Applicant/ Accused was arrested in

the abovementioned case on 04.12.2019 and was in

Police Custody till 05.12.2019 then and was

 produced before the Magistrate Concerned, upon

which he was given to the Police Remand for one

day i.e. till 06.12.2019 and on 06.12.2019 he was

sent to Judicial Custody. But no any weapon or

article and things used in crime is recovered from

the possession of Applicant/ Accused by the Police.

6. 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.

7. That the Bail Applicant/ Accused has filed the bail

application under section 437 Cr.P.C. before the Ld.

Concerned Magistrate which was Erroneously

 dismissed on 18.12.2019 without considering facts

and circumstances of the case. A copy of the order

dated 18/12/2018 is annexed herewith and marked

as Annexure 3.

8. That aggrieved with the order dated 18.12.2018,

Bail Applicant/ Accused has filed bail application

before the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-03 (North-

West District). on 24.12.2018 and the same has

been dismissed by the Ld. Additional Sessions

Judge-03 (North-West District) Shri M. R. Sethi.

9. That it was argued by the prosecution before the

Courts below during Bail Application that the Bail

Applicant/ Accused is involved in various other

cases and has past antecedent. It is respectfully

submitted that all the cases in which Bail

Applicant/ Accused’s name appeared are mostly

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. The True

Internet copy of Status cases is Marked and

Annexed as Annexure-4.

10. That it is pertinent to mention here that the

parents of the Bail Applicant/ Accused are old age

 and heart patient. The copy of said medical report

are annexed and mark herein as Annexure - 5

11. That the Bail Applicant/ Accused’s Sister’s

Marriage is going to happen in April and Roka

ceremony has been just took place few days back

from the date of alleged incident. The Photo Graphs

of Roka Ceremony and Marriage Hall Booking

Receipt is Marked and annexed as Annexure-6

12. 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 to him which

were also taken before the Ld. Magistrate Concerned and

Ld. Sessions judge, North-West District but were not

considered are as under –

13. That the Bail Applicant/ Accused has been

falsely implicated in the instant case and is

innocent as the Bail Applicant/ Accused was not

named in the Aforementioned FIR. The Bail

Applicant/ Accused is romped in as an accused in

the case only to show and keep calm the public

gathered around Police station over inaction on the

 part of police over the alleged Incident mentioned in

the present FIR. And the main purpose to call the

Bail Applicant/ Accused to the police station was to

gather information and whereabout of actual

accused persons involved in the present caseas they

were allegedly known to the Bail Applicant/

Accused.

14. It is respectfully submitted that the Role of the

Bail Applicant/ Accused as per the Prosecution in

the alleged offence and the main allegation is that

the Bail Applicant/ Accused caught hold of the

Victim i.e, Rajeev during the Commission of crime

mentioned in the FIR. In the humble submission of

the Bail Applicant/ Accused, the allegations are

wrong because the statement of Victim under

section 161 was obtained after the arrest of the Bail

Applicant/ Accused 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.

Therefore, there is no substance in the allegations

levelled by the prosecution.

15. It is respectfully submitted that the

prosecution has already arrested alleged actual

persons and are under Judicial custody and have

taken statement under section 161 of Victim and all

the witnesses though the weapon has no yet been

recovered which was allegedly used in the

abovementioned commission of crime. Therefore,

there is no necessity of the Bail Applicant/ Accused

to be in judicial custody. There is no question of any

tampering of evidence, as the prosecution

completely relied on the statement of anVictim, and

have no corroboration whatsoever between the role

of the main accused and the Bail Applicant/

Accused herein.

16. Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not

Considering 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 laterwas

called over phone much after the incident for

enquiry purpose only and was kept in police station.

17. Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not

Considering that no weapon has been recovered

 from the possession of the Bail Applicant/ Accused/

Accused and even no weapon has been recovered by

investigating officer during police custody which

was allegedly used in the aforementioned

commission of crime and as alleged in the FIR

which is a substantial piece of evidence which could

co-relate the commission offence by the Bail

Applicant/ Accused/ Accused.

18. Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not

Considering 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.

19. Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not

Considering that Victim/ injured was conscious at

the time of admission in hospital and remained

during treatment.

20. Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not

Considering that no eye witnesses were present at

the time of alleged incident.

21. Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not

Considering that as per the allegations, the injuries

have not been inflicted by the Bail Applicant/

Accused and as per statement recorded u/s 161

Cr.P.C. of Victim, the Bail Applicant/ Accused only

caught hold of him during the incident.

22. Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not

Considering that 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.”

23. Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not

Considering that the accused/Bail Applicant/

Accused 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 are known to the Bail Applicant/

Accused.

24. Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not

Considering that there was no enmity between the

Injured and the Bail Applicant/ Accused. The Bail

Applicant/ Accused did not even knew the Injured

and the Bail Applicant/ Accused has no role to play

in the entire incident.

25. Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not

Considering that the Bail Applicant/ Accused is a

young person in his early twenties and craves for a

sympathetic consideration by this Hon’ble Court.

26. Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not

Considering that the Bail Applicant/

Accused/accused 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 accused/ Bail

Applicant/ Accused will interfere with the course of

justice in any manner.

27. Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not

Considering that no purpose will be served by

keeping the young Bail Applicant/ Accused with the

hardened criminals.
28. It is respectfully submitted that the learned

Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, have rejected the bail application of the Bail

Applicant/ Accused on the ground that the Gravity

and nature of offence and the previous involvement

of the Bail Applicant/ Accused. This observation of

the Courts below, is completely wrong because 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 almost all the cases

where his previous involvement is shown by the

police and are now closed. Despite having no

evidence and no role being attributed to the Bail

Applicant/ Accused into the alleged offence, the Bail

Applicant/ Accused is being implicated in the

present case.

29. It is respectfully submitted that the

prosecution has stated before the Courts below

during the Bail hearing of accused about his previos

involvement in crime knowing that mostly cases are

closed and disposed off where none of the cases the

Bail Applicant/ Accused is convicted and on the

 other hand he is acquitted beyond doubt. The

prosecution had deliberately made those statements

and allegations in order to amplify the scope of

allegations against the Bail Applicant/ Accused

herein.

30. It is respectfully submitted that the Bail

Applicant/ Accused had already spent almost two

months in Jail and there is no evidence directly

against the Bail Applicant/ Accused regarding the

involvement in the alleged offence. The one and only

reason given by the prosecution is that the

statement of Victim where he said that the Bail

Applicant/ Accused caught hold of him and had

shown the Bail Applicant/ Accused is also involved

in the offence. 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.

31. It is further submitted that there is no need for

judicial custody of the Bail Applicant/ Accused, and

the Bail Applicant/ Accused had cooperated with

the investigation of the police completely and will

 cooperate in future. Further, it is relevant to submit

that the Bail Applicant/ Accused is not the

perpetrator of the crime, and has been falsely

implicated in the case. Further, there is nothing on

record to state that the Bail Applicant/ Accused will

tamper with the witness in the present case.

32. Without prejudice to the above submissions, it

is respectfully submitted that the Bail Applicant/

Accused is ready and willing to submit a bond to

the satisfaction of the hon Court and also undertake

to abide by any condition imposed by this Hon'ble

Court including the condition regarding visitation to

the Police Station on regular intervals.

33. That the Bail Applicant/ Accused undertakes

to fully cooperate with the investigation. There is

absolutely no apprehension that the Bail Applicant/

Accused will abscond from justice. Further, 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 more

than 50 days, 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 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:

“4. While so introspecting, among the factors

that need to be considered is whether the

accused was arrested during investigations

when that person perhaps has the best

opportunity to tamper with the evidence or

influence witnesses. If the investigating officer

does not find it necessary to arrest an accused

person during investigations, a strong case

should be made out for placing that person in

judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed.

Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether

the accused was participating in the

investigations to the satisfaction of the

investigating officer and was not absconding or

not appearing when required by the

investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is

not hiding from the investigating officer or is

hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear

 of being victimized, it would be a factor that a

judge would need to consider in an appropriate

case. It is also necessary for the judge to

consider whether the accused is a first-time

offender or has been accused of other offences

and if so, the nature of such offences and his

or her general conduct…

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.”

34. 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.

35. That the Bail Applicant/ Accused has not filed

any other petition before this Hon'ble Court or

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for the

same relief.

36. The acts alleged of the Bail Applicant/ Accused

have not caused any loss to any person, and there

is absolutely no necessity for the Bail Applicant/

Accused to be in custodial interrogation. That the

Bail Applicant/ Accused is ready to furnish the

surety to the satisfaction of the court if so

requirement. Further, the Bail Applicant/ Accused

undertakes to be regular and punctual in his

attendance before the Hon’ble Trial Court and

further undertake to abide by all terms and

conditions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit

and proper to impose under the facts and

circumstances of the case. That the Bail Applicant/

Accused further undertakes to abide all the

condition imposed upon him by this Hon’ble Court.

PRAYER :
 It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that

this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to –

A. To grant a regular bail to the Bail Applicant/

Accused, under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. in the

case FIR No. 1116 of 2018 dated 03.12.2018 of

P.S. Mangolpuri.

B. 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.

--- Through ---

KAMAL SINGH
Advocate for the Applicant
Apartment no. 403, PVC-15,
Jaypee Geens, Sector-128
Noida, Uttar Pradesh
Mobile No. 7017249223
legalclawsindia@gmail.com

Place: Delhi
Date: 23.01.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF :

Lalit @ Lalli …….APPLICANT

VERSUS

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) …..RESPONDENT

AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CRPC.

SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM FILING TRANSLATED
COPIES OF SOME ANNEXURES

TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
HIS COMPANION JUSTICE OF THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

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 FIR No. 1116 of 2018

dated 03.12.2018 for offences under Sections 307 of

the IPC.

2. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of

the application have been mentioned in detail in the

accompanying application and for the sake of brevity

and convenience the Bail Applicant/ Accused herein

craves to rely on the same for the purpose of this

application.
 3. That the Bail Applicant/ Accused has filed the true

copies of the Annexures and the same could not be

Transalted due to paucity of time. Therefore the Bail

Applicant/ Accused may be exempted from filing

certified copies of the Annexures.

4. The present application is being moved bonafide and

to need the ends of justice.

PRAYER

It is therefore, prayed most respectfully that this

Hon'ble court may be pleased to:-

a) Exempt the Bail Applicant/ Accused from filing

Translated copy of the ANNEXURS

b) Pass such other orders as may be deem fit, in the

interest of justice.

--- Through ---

KAMAL SINGH
Advocate for the Applicant
Apartment no. 403, PVC-15,
Jaypee Geens, Sector-128
Noida, Uttar Pradesh
Mobile No. 7017249223
legalclawsindia@gmail.com

Place: Delhi
Date: 23.01.2019