| Prompt: | |
| Generate a Bail Application involving the following key legal details: | |
| - CASE: Crime No. 19 of 2014 | |
| - DISTRICT: Not available | |
| - BAIL APPLICATION: Not available | |
| --- | |
| Output: | |
| IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, | |
| LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW | |
| Criminal Misc. Case No. (B) of 2015 | |
| Ramraj alias Tedhu aged about 52 year son of Ganga | |
| Prasad resident of Village – Gopalpur (Updhayaypur), | |
| Police Station – Antu, District – Pratapgarh | |
| .....Applicant | |
| (In Jail from 06.02.2014) | |
| Versus | |
| State of Uttar Pradesh | |
| .....Opposite Party | |
| Case Crime No. 19 of 2014 | |
| Under section 147, 148, 149, | |
| 302, 307, 352 I.P.C. | |
| Police Station – Antu | |
| District – Pratapgarh | |
| Bail application rejected by the, | |
| Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh on 15.07.2014 | |
| APPLICATION FOR BAIL UNDER SECTION 439 Cr. P.C. | |
| The applicant most respectfully submits as under:- | |
| For the facts and reasons mentioned in accompanying | |
| affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that this | |
| Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant the bail | |
| to the applicant in the interest of Justice. | |
| Lucknow (Dr. Gyan Singh) | |
| Advocate | |
| Dated : .2015 Counsel for the applicant | |
| Case Crime No. 19 of 2014 | |
| Under section 147, 148, 149, | |
| 302, 307, 352 I.P.C. | |
| Police Station – Antu | |
| District – Pratapgarh | |
| Bail application rejected by the, | |
| Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh on 15.07.2014 | |
| IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, | |
| LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW | |
| Criminal Misc. Case No. (B)of 2014 | |
| Ramraj alias Tedhu ...Applicant | |
| (In Jail from 06.02.2014) | |
| Versus | |
| State of Uttar Pradesh ....Opposite Party | |
| AFFIDAVIT | |
| (In support of bail application) | |
| I, Brijesh Kumar son of Shri Basudev ageda about 45 | |
| years resident of House NO. 4, Village – Bojhi, Police | |
| Station – Mandhata, District Pratapgarh, Religion – | |
| Hindu, Education – Illiterate, Occupation – | |
| Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on | |
| oath as under :- | |
| That the deponent is the relative of the | |
| 1. | |
| applicant and duly authorized by the applicant to | |
| file the aforesaid application before this | |
| Hon'ble Court and as such she is fully conversant | |
| with the facts of the case and deposed as under. | |
| The ID Proof of the deponent is enclosed and his | |
| photograph is affixed on the affidavit. | |
| That this is the first bail application before | |
| 2. | |
| this Hon'ble Court. No any other bail | |
| application pending before this Hon'ble Court or | |
| rejected by this Hon'ble Court. | |
| That brief facts of the case is that a first | |
| 3. | |
| information report has been lodged against the | |
| applicant and 8 other persons on 25.01.2014 at | |
| 19.00 hours by the informant Ikhlak Ahamad under | |
| section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 I.P.C. at | |
| Police Station –Antu, District – Pratapgarh as | |
| the brothers of the informant namely Pappu alias | |
| Istkhar Ahmad and Anees Ahamad (hereinafter | |
| referred to as deceased) have murdered by | |
| applicant and 8 other person on 25.01.2014. The | |
| photocopy of the first information report dated | |
| 25.01.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to | |
| this application. | |
| That as per first information report, the alleged | |
| 4. | |
| incident took place on 25.01.2014 at 5.00 P.M. | |
| and the first information report was lodged on | |
| same day at 07.00 P.M. i.e. after 2 hours of the | |
| alleged incident, while the distance between the | |
| incident place and police station is only 9 | |
| Kilometers and the informant was having | |
| motorcycle. | |
| That according to the first information report | |
| 5. | |
| the informant was present everywhere i.e. from | |
| Chamanganj Bazar, which place the deceased was | |
| picked and he was also called his cousin brothers | |
| namely Maksood Ahmad and Azaz Ahamd and all three | |
| are followed the deceased till incident place but | |
| not raised alarm at any point in any manner. | |
| That as a matter of record, the first information | |
| 6. | |
| report was not lodged after two hours of the | |
| alleged incident, it has been lodged after much | |
| delay of the alleged incident, which is itself | |
| clear from perusal of the inquest reports of the | |
| deceased persons as in the inquest reports, it is | |
| clearly mentioned that the information regarding | |
| the death of deceased persons was given at police | |
| station on 25.01.2014 at 11.20 P.M. and on | |
| 26.01.2014 at 00.35 A.M. by Ward Boy Sita Ram and | |
| on the inquest report no case number is | |
| mentioned. Photo/type copies of the inquest | |
| reports of the deceased persons are being annexed | |
| collectively as Annexure No. 02 to this | |
| application. | |
| That from perusal of the first information | |
| 7. | |
| report, it is clear that it had been registered | |
| under section 302 I.P.C. about 4 ½ hours prior to | |
| the information of the death of deceased persons. | |
| The fact itself creates doubt on the genuineness | |
| of the first information report. | |
| That it is admitted case of the prosecution that | |
| 8. | |
| neither the complainant nor his cousins (alleged | |
| eye witnesses) have received any type of injury | |
| in the alleged incident. This fact itself creates | |
| doubt on the presence of complainant and his | |
| cousins at the place of alleged incident. | |
| That the post mortem reports of the deceased | |
| 9. | |
| persons do not corroborate the prosecution case | |
| as in the post mortem report of deceased Anees | |
| three injuries have been reported and in the post | |
| mortem report of Istikhar alias Pappu, two | |
| injuries have been reported, while as per | |
| prosecution all the accused persons badly | |
| assaulted the deceased persons and further no | |
| fire arm injury has been found on the body of | |
| deceased persons. Photo/type copies of the post | |
| mortem report dated 26.01.2014 are being annexed | |
| collectively as Annexure No. 03 to this | |
| application. | |
| That a bare perusal of the post mortem reports of | |
| 10. | |
| deceased persons reveals that deceased persons | |
| died due to head injury and the prosecution is | |
| silent on this point that who is author of the | |
| those fatal injuries. Typed copy of the statement | |
| of the informant is being annexed as Annexure No. | |
| 04 to this application. | |
| That the D.F.O. Anand Kumar Srivastava and Ranger | |
| 11. | |
| Shiv Shankar Singh, who have been made eye | |
| witness of the alleged incident, did not support | |
| the prosecution story in their statements | |
| recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.. Photocopies | |
| of the statements of D.F.O. Anand Kumar | |
| Srivastava and Ranger Shiv Shanker Singh recorded | |
| under section 161 Cr.P.C. are being annexed | |
| collectively as Annexure No. 05 to this | |
| application. | |
| That neither the applicant has motive nor any | |
| 12. | |
| motive has been assigned to him to commit the | |
| crime in question and the motive to commit the | |
| crime in question has been assigned to the co- | |
| accused Ram Pratap, with whom the applicant has | |
| no concerned in any manner. | |
| That the role of the causing injury by gahdala | |
| 13. | |
| has been assigned to the applicant and the false | |
| recovery of gahdala has been also shown on his | |
| pointing out, while the reality is that nothing | |
| has been recovered by the pointing out of the | |
| applicant and the alleged recovery of the gahdala | |
| is false & fabricated and before the alleged | |
| incident i.e. 06.01.2014 and planted on, which is | |
| itself evident from this very fact that the | |
| alleged recovery has been shown from an open | |
| place, which is easy approach of every person and | |
| further there is no independent witnesses of the | |
| alleged recovery. Photo/type copy of the forged | |
| recovery memo is being annexed as Annexure No. 06 | |
| to this application. | |
| That after perusal of the post mortem report, | |
| 14. | |
| it’s clear that there is no any gahdala injuries | |
| on any deceased persons. | |
| That the alleged incident is said to have been | |
| 15. | |
| taken place in dusky hours of winter evening and | |
| no source of light has been disclosed. | |
| That earlier the first information report was | |
| 16. | |
| registered only against 9 persons but later on, | |
| during the course of investigation, two persons | |
| have also been made accused in the present case. | |
| That as a matter of fact, the deceased persons | |
| 17. | |
| were hardened criminal and they have been | |
| murdered due to their criminal activities and | |
| later on, after having the knowledge of the death | |
| of the his brothers, the informant managed | |
| lodging a false first information report against | |
| applicant and 8 other persons, with whom he is on | |
| inimical terms, by taking the illegal benefits of | |
| death of his brothers. | |
| That there is no credible evidence on record | |
| 18. | |
| which could show that the applicant is guilty or | |
| committed the crime in question and the evidence | |
| available on record itself show that no prima- | |
| facie offence under section 147, 148, 149, 302, | |
| 307, 452 I.P.C. is made out against the | |
| applicant. | |
| That the applicant has no motive to commit the | |
| 19. | |
| alleged crime and false motive which given in | |
| case, is cooked and fabricated by the concerned | |
| police. | |
| That since the applicant has not committed any | |
| 20. | |
| offence as alleged but he has been falsely | |
| implicated in the case by the informant in | |
| malafide intention. | |
| That no any involvement in the said case as | |
| 21. | |
| alleged in first information report, the | |
| applicant has no reason to murder the deceased. | |
| That the applicant moved bail application bearing | |
| 22. | |
| No. 627 of 2014 before Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh | |
| and his bail application has been rejected by the | |
| court concerned on 15.07.2014. Certified copy of | |
| the bail rejection order dated 15.07.2014 is | |
| being annexed as Annexure No. 07 to this | |
| application. | |
| That the applicant filed certified copy of the | |
| 23. | |
| bail rejection order dated 15.07.2014 because | |
| free copy of the bail rejection order is being | |
| never received. The bail application moved before | |
| the court below along with five persons and same | |
| is rejected by one order dated 15.07.2014. | |
| That the applicant in jail since 06.02.2014. | |
| 24. | |
| That the applicant has no criminal history except | |
| 25. | |
| the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope | |
| in future to commit any offence. | |
| That there is no chance of the applicant | |
| 26. | |
| absconding or tempering with the prosecution | |
| witnesses. | |
| That the applicant is ready to furnished the | |
| 27. | |
| security and bond and also undertake that he will | |
| be never misused liberty of bail. | |
| That in view of the above, it would be expedient | |
| 28. | |
| and necessary in the interest of justice that the | |
| applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of | |
| case. | |
| Lucknow | |
| Date : 2015 Deponent | |
| VERIFICATION | |
| I, the deponent, do hereby verify that the | |
| contents of para 1 to of this affidavit are | |
| true to my personal knowledge. No part of its is false | |
| and nothing material has been concealed. So, help me | |
| “GOD”. | |
| Lucknow | |
| Dated: 2015 Deponent | |
| I, identify the deponent on the basis of the record | |
| produced by the deponent, who has signed before me. | |
| Advocate | |
| Solemnly affirmed before me on | |
| at A.M./P.M. by the deponent, who has been | |
| identified by Sri Prabhat Kumar Mishra, Advocate, High | |
| Court, Lucknow, Bench, Lucknow. Enrollment No. 8078 of | |
| 2011, resident Nigohan, Lucknow. Mobile No. 8004776600 | |
| I, have satisfied myself by examining the deponent | |
| that she understands the contents of this affidavit, | |
| which have been read over and explained by me. | |
| OATH COMMISSIONER | |
| IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, | |
| LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW | |
| Criminal Misc. Case No. (B)of 2015 | |
| Ramraj alias Tedhu ...Applicant | |
| (In Jail from 06.02.2014) | |
| Versus | |
| State of Uttar Pradesh ....Opposite Party | |
| INDEX | |
| Sr.No | |
| Particulars Page No. | |
| Application for bail under section | |
| 439 Cr.P.C. | |
| 1. | |
| Affidavit in support of | |
| 2. | |
| application | |
| Annexure No. 1 | |
| 3. | |
| The photocopy of the first | |
| information report dated | |
| 25.01.2014 | |
| Annexure No. 2 | |
| 4. | |
| Photo/type copies of the inquest | |
| reports of the deceased persons | |
| Annexure No. 3 | |
| 5. | |
| Photo/type copies of the post | |
| mortem report dated 26.01.2014 | |
| Annexure No. 4 | |
| 6. | |
| Typed copy of the statement of the | |
| informant | |
| Annexure No. 5 | |
| 7. | |
| Photocopies of the statements of | |
| D.F.O. Anand Kumar Srivastava and | |
| Ranger Shiv Shanker Singh recorded | |
| under section 161 Cr.P.C | |
| Annexure No. 6 | |
| 8. | |
| Photo/type copy of the forged | |
| recovery memo | |
| Annexure No. 7 | |
| 9. | |
| Certified copy of the bail | |
| rejection order dated 15.07.2014 | |
| Memo | |
| 10. | |
| Lucknow (Dr. Gyan Singh) | |
| Advocate | |
| Dated : .2015 Counsel for the applicant | |