IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SESSION JUDGE, AMBALA

…………….

MOHIT ( presently confide in Ambala Central Jail )

( Aadhar card no 5561 7183 2431)

( phone no 86073 37667)

………………Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

………….Respondent

FIR NO. – 220 Dated 15.04.2023

U/S- 379A IPC

P.S: AMBALA CANTT

1st BAIL APPLICATION TO

GRANT BAIL TO THE ACCUSED

APPLICANT NAMELY GAURAV

KUMAR UNDER SECTION 439

CRPC

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the applicant is not previous convict.

2. That the applicant was falsely implicated in the present

case as unplanted recovery has been shown from the

accused applicant.

3. That the story as mention in the FIR is totally false as the

petitioner was arrested from her house without any reason

& the money was also taken by the police from her house

4. That prosecution allege

after getting group loan done in Ujjivan Bank by

complainant , took 50 thousand rupees from the

bank and kept it in our purse. When both of us

were going to our house by riding on our Activa,

that time was around 1.00. It was in the afternoon

when we reached SD Vidya School Ambala Cantt,

then two young boys on a motorcycle came from

behind us.The boy who was sitting behind on the

motorcycle snatched the purse from my hand and

sped his motorcycle off the road in front of the

hospital Ambala Cantt. Who ran away. Apart from

50 thousand rupees loan in my purse, my mobile

brand Samsung whose number is 8307068534, my

and my husband's Aadhaar card was also in the

purse itself. We husband and wife fell on the spot

due to a jerk while snatching the purse. Till now we

have been searching for those unknown bike riding

boys on our own but we could not find any clue of

them. Please find those bike riding boys and strict

 legal action should be taken against them and our

money, mobile and Aadhaar card should be

recovered.

5. That the recovery shown by the police is false

6. That the petitioner hails from the reputed family and is

permanent resident of the above mentioned address and

there is no likely hood of his being absconding or jumping

over the bail.

7. That the bail is rule of law and the custody of the -applicant

is an exception as in State of Rajasthan v. Bal

chand ,AIR 1977SC 2447:(1977) 4 SCC 308 :(1978) 1

SCR 535, the supreme court observed that “ the normal

rule is bail and not jail”. In Datta Ram Singh v. State of

U.P reported as 2018 (2)RCR (criminal), page 131 hon’ble

supreme court held that grant of bail is general rule and

putting a person behind jail is an exception . Also in Arnab

M.Goswami V.State of Maharastra &ors.2021 (2) SCC

427 it has been held that “basic rule of our criminal justice

system is “bail not jail” all court must enforce this principal.

8. That, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again in plethora of

judgements lamented over the age-old mentality of the

police personal to “arrest first and then proceed with rest”

and considered arrest as one of the most nefarious vestiges

of British rule in India. The provision of arrest is the

negation of Fundamental Right of Life and liberty, the most

precious of all human rights.

9. That the petitioner further undertakes that he will not

directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or

promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case

so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the

Court or to any Police Officer.

10. That mere allegation does not amount the guilt of any

person, as the same requires evidence which would be

taken during the course of the trial. It is also settled law

that bail is a rule and jail is an exception.

11. That mere allegation does not amount the guilt of any

person, as the same requires evidence which would be

taken during the course of the trial. It is also settled law

that bail is a rule and jail is an exception.

12. That the trial will take long time to conclude As in State

of kerla v. Raneef ,AIR SC 340: 2011 AIR SCW 306:

2011 Cr LJ 982 apex court observed that in granting bail

the delay in conclusion of trial is an important factor to be

considered therefore this Court deems it appropriate to

release the petitioner on regular bail as there is no useful

purpose would be served by detaining the accused applicant

in further custody till the conclusion of trial.

13. That it is rule of law that every person is presumed

innocent until the final decision of the court holding him

guilty of the charge / charges made against him.

14. That the trial of the case will take a sufficient long time

and no purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in

the judicial custody.

15. That the petitioner is ready to furnish the surety/bail

bonds as per the entire satisfaction of this Hon’le Court.

16. That it is a fit case for bail.

PRAYER
It is therefore prayed that the petitioner may kindly be ordered
to be release on the bail till pending decision of the case, in the
interest of justice, law and equity.

Dated. – 25.07.2023
Place – Ambala
Petitioner
Gaurav kumar

THROUGH COUNSEL

SHUBHAM RANA (भानु प्रताप)

ENRL NO –PH/1228/2021
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SESSION JUDGE , AMBALA
…………….
GAURAV KUMAR Versus State of Haryana

FIR NO. – 220 Dated 15.04.2023

U/S- 379A IPC
P.S: AMBALA CANTT

1st BAIL APPLICATION TO

GRANT BAIL TO THE ACCUSED
APPLICANT NAMELY GAURAV
KUMAR UNDER SECTION 439
CRPC
….Affidavit …..
I Ravi Kumar aged about 27 years son of shri Nariender
Kumar resident of village Khelan Distt S.A.S Nagar Mohali
Ambala ( bearing aadhar card no 4113 5656 4251) , do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as-
1. That no similar bail application is pending or decided
against the petitioner in any court of law as the first bail
application was withdrawn on same day of filling.
2. That the present bail application for of bail filed by the
applicant- accused before this hon’ble Court through his
counsel
3. That the deponent is having knowledge about the facts of
case & the above petition is prepared under my
instruction
4. That the deponent is brother of applicant

Deponent

Verification;-
Verified at ambla city on 26 .05 -2023 that the content of all
paras of my affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein

Deponent
 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SESSION JUDGE, AMBALA

…………….

Gaurav kumar aged about 24 years son of shri Nariender Kumar

resident of village Khelan Distt S.A.S Nagar Mohali ( presently

confide in Ambala Central Jail )

( Aadhar card no 5561 7183 2431)

( phone no 86073 37667)

………………Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

………….Respondent

FIR NO. – 220 Dated 15.04.2023

U/S- 379A IPC

P.S: AMBALA CANTT

1st BAIL APPLICATION TO

GRANT BAIL TO THE ACCUSED

APPLICANT NAMELY GAURAV

KUMAR UNDER SECTION 439

CRPC
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the applicant is not previous convict.

2. That the applicant was falsely implicated in the present

case as unplanted recovery has been shown from the

accused applicant.

3. That the story as mention in the FIR is totally false as the

petitioner was arrested from her house without any reason

& the money was also taken by the police from her house

4. That prosecution allege

after getting group loan done in Ujjivan Bank by

complainant , took 50 thousand rupees from the

bank and kept it in our purse. When both of us

were going to our house by riding on our Activa,

that time was around 1.00. It was in the afternoon

when we reached SD Vidya School Ambala Cantt,

then two young boys on a motorcycle came from

behind us.The boy who was sitting behind on the

motorcycle snatched the purse from my hand and

sped his motorcycle off the road in front of the

hospital Ambala Cantt. Who ran away. Apart from

50 thousand rupees loan in my purse, my mobile

brand Samsung whose number is 8307068534, my

and my husband's Aadhaar card was also in the

purse itself. We husband and wife fell on the spot

due to a jerk while snatching the purse. Till now we

 have been searching for those unknown bike riding

boys on our own but we could not find any clue of

them. Please find those bike riding boys and strict

legal action should be taken against them and our

money, mobile and Aadhaar card should be

recovered.

5. That the recovery shown by the police is false

6. That the petitioner hails from the reputed family and is

permanent resident of the above mentioned address and

there is no likely hood of his being absconding or jumping

over the bail.

7. That the bail is rule of law and the custody of the -applicant

is an exception as in State of Rajasthan v. Bal

chand ,AIR 1977SC 2447:(1977) 4 SCC 308 :(1978) 1

SCR 535, the supreme court observed that “ the normal

rule is bail and not jail”. In Datta Ram Singh v. State of

U.P reported as 2018 (2)RCR (criminal), page 131 hon’ble

supreme court held that grant of bail is general rule and

putting a person behind jail is an exception . Also in Arnab

M.Goswami V.State of Maharastra &ors.2021 (2) SCC

427 it has been held that “basic rule of our criminal justice

system is “bail not jail” all court must enforce this principal.

8. That, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again in plethora of

judgements lamented over the age-old mentality of the

police personal to “arrest first and then proceed with rest”

and considered arrest as one of the most nefarious vestiges

 of British rule in India. The provision of arrest is the

negation of Fundamental Right of Life and liberty, the most

precious of all human rights.

9. That the petitioner further undertakes that he will not

directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or

promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case

so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the

Court or to any Police Officer.

10. That mere allegation does not amount the guilt of any

person, as the same requires evidence which would be

taken during the course of the trial. It is also settled law

that bail is a rule and jail is an exception.

11. That mere allegation does not amount the guilt of any

person, as the same requires evidence which would be

taken during the course of the trial. It is also settled law

that bail is a rule and jail is an exception.

12. That the trial will take long time to conclude As in State

of kerla v. Raneef ,AIR SC 340: 2011 AIR SCW 306:

2011 Cr LJ 982 apex court observed that in granting bail

the delay in conclusion of trial is an important factor to be

considered therefore this Court deems it appropriate to

release the petitioner on regular bail as there is no useful

purpose would be served by detaining the accused applicant

in further custody till the conclusion of trial.

13. That it is rule of law that every person is presumed

innocent until the final decision of the court holding him

guilty of the charge / charges made against him.

14. That the trial of the case will take a sufficient long time

and no purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in

the judicial custody.

15. That the petitioner is ready to furnish the surety/bail

bonds as per the entire satisfaction of this Hon’le Court.

16. That it is a fit case for bail.

PRAYER
It is therefore prayed that the petitioner may kindly be ordered
to be release on the bail till pending decision of the case, in the
interest of justice, law and equity.

Dated. – 25.07.2023
Place – Ambala
Petitioner
Gaurav kumar

THROUGH COUNSEL

SHUBHAM RANA (भानु प्रताप)

ENRL NO –PH/1228/2021
 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SESSION JUDGE , AMBALA
…………….
GAURAV KUMAR Versus State of Haryana

FIR NO. – 220 Dated 15.04.2023

U/S- 379A IPC
P.S: AMBALA CANTT

1st BAIL APPLICATION TO

GRANT BAIL TO THE ACCUSED
APPLICANT NAMELY GAURAV
KUMAR UNDER SECTION 439
CRPC

Index

Sr.no Particular Pages no .

1. Petition under section 1-4

2. Affidavit 5

3. FIR Copy 6-

4. Vakalatnama

5. Police copy

THROUGH COUNSEL
SHUBHAM RANA (भानु प्रताप)
ENRL NO –PH/1228/2021

Note
1. That the applicant is not involved in any other FIR of any
kind .