IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR, LD.

ACMM
NORTH WEST DISTT. , ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:-

STATE VS BIJENDER@MONU

FIR NO-0028/2022
U/S: 420,120B, 468, 471 IPC
NDOH 15.03.2023
PS: MAURYA ENCLAVE
IN JC
INDEX

S. NO PARTICULARS PAGE NO
1. Application Under Section 437 of 1-4
CrPC For the Grant of Bail

Applicant / Accused
DATED: 20.02.2023 (IN J.C.)
NEW DELHI

THROUGH

RISHABH CHORARIA
PH: 7011977871
EMAIL: choraria.rishabh@gmail.com
 ~1~

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR, LD.ACMM

NORTH WEST DISTT. , ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:-

STATE VS BIJENDER@MONU

FIR NO-0028/2022
U/S: 420,120B, 468, 471 IPC
NDOH 15.03.2023
PS: MAURYA ENCLAVE
IN JC
Application under Section 437 of CrPC for the grant of Bail – on
behalf of accused BIJENDER@MONU

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1. That, FIR NO-28/2022 dated 05.01.2022 is registered with P.S

MAURYA ENCLAVE for the offence punishable U/S:
420,120B,468,471,34,419,467 OF IPC.  That, without there being
any connection of the applicant with alleged offence, the applicant
is roped in the false case. The applicant is languishing in JC since
07.08.2022.

2. It is humbly submitted that the accused BIJENDER@MONU is a

30 year old male and Resident of A Block, Swaroop Nagar, Delhi.

3. That, the accused has deep roots in the society and has a family
comprising of his father and mother dependent upon him.
Moreover, his father is old and infirm and it’s the applicant who is
the sole earning member and care taker of his aged parents.

4. That, on 07.08.2022 the accused was arbitrarily picked by the

local police and he was charged with the instant offence without
any preliminary enquiry. It is pertinent to mention that the police
failed to follow the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs
State of Bihar & Anr CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1277 of 2014
and D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (AIR 1997 SC 610)
case, thus making this arrest bad in law.

5. It is humbly put forth that the FIR no. 028/22 lodged by does not
anywhere carry the name of the accused moreover, prima facia
the allegations made out in the FIR have no allegations, indication
 ~2~

or even reference of the accused in the alleged offence. The

accused was arrested on a baseless ground without any cogent
proof and he is falsely implicated in this case without any proof.

6. It is also submitted that the FIR was registered on 05.01.2022 and

the accused was arrested after an unexplainable delay of around
eight months. Neither was the accused an absconder or evading
arrest rather he was peacefully working and taking care of his
family at his said address.

7. It is further submitted that the FIR has direct reference of one Mr.
Naresh Goyal and Mrs. Vijaya Goyal who are the prime accused
persons whereas the applicant is not connected with this crime.
Seemingly the arrest of the applicant appears to be a witch hunt
as he was an innocent person with no malafide intention and was
made a scape goat by the actual culprits.

8. It is also submitted the alleged offence is more of a

civil/commercial transaction between some parties involving some
property and the same has been given the color of a criminal
dispute by the complainant to extract quick gains.

9. It is further reiterated that the fundamental allegation in the FIR

nowhere mentions the involvement of the applicant/accused
moreover, it is apparent that the issue is purely civil in nature and
the same could have been resolved by the appropriate civil forum
but the same was converted into a criminal offence by the
complainant for quick gains and even the investigating agencies
failed to apply their mind and conduct a preliminary enquiry as no
ingredient of cheating is apparent in this case.

10. It is also submitted that the prime Accused Hargovind Singh was
granted bail by this Hon’ble court whereas the applicant who has
no connection with this crime is languishing in jail.

11. It is humbly submitted that offence is more of documentary in

nature and the documents are already collected by the
investigating authorities and filed in the charge sheet and keeping
the applicant in custody will serve no purpose in the trial.
 ~3~

12. That, the investigating authority acted arbitrarily and disregarded

the guidelines of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar & Anr
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1277 of 2014 which stated as follows :

“Arrest brings humiliation, curtails freedom and cast scars

forever. Law makers know it so also the police. There is a battle
between the law makers and the police and it seems that police has
not learnt its lesson; the lesson implicit and embodied in the code of
criminal procedure. It has not come out of its colonial image despite
six decades of independence; it is largely considered as a tool of
harassment, oppression and surely not considered a friend of
public.”

13. That the accused has not been an absconder or evade the process
of law or hindered the investigation. Moreover the accused has
been arrested as a scape goat. It is submitted that the accused
was arrested to shield the actual influential persons.

14. That, the accused has never had any malafide intention rather his
social obligations and family obligations are such that his roots
are deeply entrenched in the society. He needs to take case of his
parents and it’s the applicant that used to look after their medical
needs. The absence of accused will make his parents a collateral
damage.

15. That the arrest is more punitive on the accused and will not aid
the investigation in any manner. Rather the liberty of the accused
in at jeopardy and violated.

16. It is humbly that accused has not committed any offence

punishable with death or life imprisonment and the nature of
evidence against the petitioner is documentary in nature which
would not require the custodial presence of the petitioner.
Moreover he has clean antecedents.

17. It is also submitted that the applicant although an adults but is in

the prime of his youth and has a good future ahead, being
incarcerated as undertrial would deprive them of being gainfully
employed.

18. The FIR lodged by the First Informant is an afterthought and

present applicant has no concern with the crime alleged and the
 ~4~

applicant has not committed any offence as alleged by the

prosecution and whatever is placed on record is alleged to be a
fabricated piece of evidence.

19. That, the investigation is complete and whatever was to be

recovered is already recovered and there will be no purpose served
by keeping present applicant/accused in custody. Moreover, there
is nothing vehemently incriminating against the applicant that
justifies his prolonged custody.

20. That the Applicant/Accused will not tamper or hamper with the
prosecution’s evidence and is ready to abide by any terms and
conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court.

21. That, applicant has not filed any other similar bail application
before any other court.

IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT:-

(a) That the applicant may be ordered to be released on bail and this
application for bail may kindly be allowed;

(b) That till the decision of this application interim bail may be
granted to the applicant;

(c) Such other orders are also passed in favor of the applicant as
deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
and in the interest of justice.

Applicant / Accused
DATED: 20.02.2023 (IN J.C.)
NEW DELHI
THROUGH

RISHABH CHORARIA
D/4378/2015
PH: 7011977871
EMAIL: choraria.rishabh@gmail.com