IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE

(NORTH-WEST DISTRICT), ROHINI COURT, DELHI

BAIL AAPLICATION NO. ………… OF 2018

IN RE :

STATE VERSUS LALIT @ LALLI

S/O Ajay Kumar
R/o G-741, 42,
Mangolpuri, North
-west Delhi- 110083

FIR NO. 1116/2018

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

INDEX
S.NO PARTICULARS PAGES C.FEE
.
1. APLLICATION FOR BAIL UNDER 1-8
SECTION 439 CRPC
ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT
2. COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER 9
DT. 18.12.2018 PASSED BY LD.
MAGISTRATE
3. COPY OF FIR 10-12
4. VAKALATNAMA 13

APPLICANT/ ACCUSED
Through Parokar

THROUGH

--- COUNSEL ---

KAMAL SINGH
ADVOCATE
Ch-28, Block-G,
Date : 22.12.2018 Karkardooma Court
Place: New Delhi Complex, Delhi
M: 7017249223
 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTH-WEST DISTRICT), ROHINI COURT, DELHI
BAIL AAPLICATION NO. ………… OF 2018

IN RE :

STATE VERSUS LALIT @ LALLI

FIR NO. 1116/2018
U/S. 307 IPC
P.S. MANGOLPURI

In J.C. since : 06.12.2018

BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 Cr.P.C.

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT/ ACCUSED SHRI
LALIT @ LALLI AGAINST THE ORDER OF
DISMISSAL OF FIRST BAIL APPLICATION BY THE
LD. MAGISTRATE.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. That the Applicant/ Accused was arrested in the above

mentioned case on 04.12.2018 and was in Police Custody
till 05.12.2018 then and was produced before the
Magistrate Concerned, upon which he was given to the
Police Remand for one day i.e. till 06.12.2018 and on
06.12.2018 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.

2. That the relevant facts of the case as disclosed from the

FIR no. 1116 of 2018 are that on 03.12.2018 at around
 07:30 pm HC Surender informed the Police station
Mangolpuri over telephone from the Sanjay Gandhi
Hospital that one injured person Rajeev (25 Yrs.) vide
(MLC no. 19177/2018) brought to the Hospital. And
subsequently police registered FIR no.1116 of 2018
against Unknown.

3. Now the chronology of events that took place after the

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

4. That the police arrested the Applicant/ Accused on

Assumptions and Surmises as the alleged unknown
Persons were known to Applicant/ Accused.
5. That the Accused/ Applicant filed a Bail Application under
section 437 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. Concerned Magistrate
which was Erroneously dismissed on 18.12.2018 without
considering facts and circumstances of the case.

GROUNDS

The applicant/accused therefore humbly prays before this

Hon’ble Court for grant of Bail to him on two main grounds
which were also taken before the Ld. Magistrate Concerned and
were not considered are as under –
A. Technical Ground for Bail.
B. Humanitarian Ground for Bail.
Technical Ground

a) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering

that the applicant/accused was not even present at
the spot at that time and thus did not know anything
about the alleged incident.
b) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering
that the applicant was not arrested from the spot of
incident but was called over phone much after the
incident and was kept in police station.
c) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering
that no weapon has been recovered from the
 possession of the Applicant/ 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
Applicant/ Accused.

d) 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.

e) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering

that All injuries are very simple and so the Offence,
which is triable by magistrate.

f) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering

that Victim/ injured was conscious at the time of
admission in hospital and remained during
treatment.

g) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering

that the alleged offence as per FIR i.e. 307 PC is not
madeout at all but only 324 IPC may be madeout.

h) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering

the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in –
Hari Kishan vs Sukhbir Singh, AIR 1988 SC 2127
“The nature of the weapon used, the manner in
which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of
the blow, the part of the body where the injury is
 inflicted is all taken into consideration to determine
the intention”
Hence, the nature of the injury is not always used to
ascertain the intention, that is, a very serious injury
need not be caused to prove attempt to murder, even if
a simple injury is done with the intention, it will be
enough to convict the person under section 307. The
most debatable aspect is that even if an injury which
in the ordinary course would have caused death, but
is not done with an intention to kill, the accused will
not be convicted under section 307. The debatable
aspect is the amount of punishment that is given
under this section, is vastly different from the
punishment given under section 324 and any false
conviction will be very harmful to the concept equity
and justice.

i) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering

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

j) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering

that as per the allegations, the injuries have not been
inflicted by the applicant/accused Lalit and not even it
has come in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of
Victim.

k) 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.”

l) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering

that the accused/applicant 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
Applicant.

m) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering

that there was no enmity between the Injured and the
applicant/accused. The applicant/accused did not
even knew the Injured.

n) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering

that the applicant/accused has no role to play in the
entire incident.

o) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering

that the applicant/accused has no previous criminal
records and antecedents.

HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS

p) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering

that the applicant/accused is a young person in his
 early twenties and craves for a sympathetic
consideration by this Hon’ble Court.

q) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering

that the applicant/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/
applicant will interfere with the course of justice in any
manner.

r) Because the Ld. Magistrate Erred in not Considering

that no purpose will be served by keeping the young
accused/applicant with the hardened criminals.

6. That the applicant/accused undertakes to abide by any term

or conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court for
his release on bail. And he is ready to furnish reliable
sureties & bonds of reasonable Amount.

PRAYER

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

Court that considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the applicant/accused Lalit @ Lalli may kindly be
ordered to be released on bail on such terms and conditions
as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.

Applicant/accused (In J.C.)

Through Parokar

Through
-
-- COUNSEL ---

Date : 22.12.2018 KAMAL SINGH

ADVOCATE
Place: New Delhi Ch-28, Block-G,
Karkardooma Court
Complex, Delhi
M: 7017249223

THE COURT OF DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE

(NORTH-WEST DISTRICT), ROHINI COURT, DELHI
BAIL AAPLICATION NO. ………… OF 2018

IN RE :

STATE VERSUS LALIT @ LALLI

AFFIDAVIT

I, Pooja Mehra D/o Mr. Ajay Kumar 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 Sister (Blood related) Parokar of the
Accused/ Applicant in the above noted case.
2. That the accompanying bail application for the grant of
bail before the Ld. Sessions Court, Delhi has been
drafted by the counsel under my instruction and the
contents of the accompanying application for grant of
bail 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
December, 2018 that the contents of the above affidavit
are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is
false and nothing material has been concealed
therefrom.
Deponent