Prompt: Generate a Bail Application involving the following key legal details: - CASE: Crime No. 632 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 Badshah alias Dada son of Hemant Singh resident of Dahilamau, Police Station – Kotawali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh .....Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh .....Opposite Party Case Crime No. 632 of 2014 Under section 452, 323, 504, 506, 354B, And 7/8 The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Police Station – Kotwali Nagar District – Pratapgarh Bail application rejected by the, Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 1, Pratapgarh on 18.09.2015 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. 632 of 2014 Under section 452, 323, 504, 506, 354B, And 7/8 The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Police Station – Kotwali Nagar District – Pratapgarh Bail application rejected by the, Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 1, Pratapgarh on 18.09.2015 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW Criminal Misc. Case No. (B)of 2015 Badshah alias Dada ...Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh ....Opposite Party AFFIDAVIT (In support of bail application) I, Suraj Kumar Singh aged about 18 years son of Hemant Singh resident of Dahilamau, Police Station – Kotawali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh, Religion – Hindu, Education – Literate, Occupation – Perusing B.Sc. II year , do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under :- That the deponent is the real brother of the 1. applicant and duly authorized by the applicant for doing pairvi of the case/ application before this Hon'ble Court and as such he 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 one another & two unmanned persons on 31.07.2014 at 17.30 hours by the informant Ghanshyam Rawat under Section 452, 323, 504, 506, 354B I.P.C. and under Section 7/8 The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police Station – Kotwali Nagar, District – Pratapgarh. The photocopy of the first information report dated 31.07.2015 is being annexed as Annexure No. 01 to this application. That as per first information report, the alleged 4. incident took place on 31.07.2014 at 01.00 P.M. as the applicant with other accused on 31.07.2014, when the daughter of the informant namely Ku. Rajni came back from her school, the accused persons beaten the daughter of the informant and also abusing to her. That the real incident is that, being resident of 5. same locality of the accused and the informant, the daughter of the informant and accused/ applicant quarreled for passing the cycle on the road, when the victim returning home from her school. That thereafter informant become annoyed and 6. decided to punished the accused person and for that purpose the informant putting the gravity of the case lodged the said first information report on the false ground and reason. That from perusal of the first information 7. report, it is clear that the Section 7/8 The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not made against the applicant as the nothing was alleged and mentioned in first information report and as well as statement of the victim, which is essential element of the Section 7 of The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The fact itself creates doubt on the genuineness of the first information report. The type of the statement of the victim is being annexed as Annexure No. 02 to this application. That the medical of the victim done at District 8. Hospital, Pratapgarh on 31.07.2014 and as per medical report the one injury shown which is simple in nature. The photo/ type copy of the medical report dated 31.07.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 03 to this application. That the statement of the informant has been 9. recorded by the concerned police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 31.07.2014 and also alleged eyewitnesses therein all repeat the first information report, nothing has been changed in their statements. The type copies of the informant and alleged eyewitness are being annexed collectively as Annexure No. 04 to this application. That alleged eyewitness produced by the informant 10. are not really eyewitnesses as the said incident not took place, they are well managed produced by the informant. That a minor quarreled between the victim and 11. accused but due to ego of the informant, he cooked false incident and implicate the applicant. That the alleged incident is said to have been 12. taken place in broad day and it is also impossible to the applicant to tried as alleged by the informant. That there is no credible evidence on record 13. 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 452, 323, 504, 506, 354B I.P.C. and under Section 7/8 The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is made out against the applicant. That the applicant is student and belongs to 14. respected family of the society also and due to ego of the informant he falsely implicated in the said case crime. That since the applicant has not committed any 15. offence as alleged but he has been falsely implicated in the case by the informant in malafide intention. That the applicant moved bail application bearing 16. No. 1528 of 2015 before Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 1, Pratapgarh and his bail application has been rejected by the court concerned on 18.09.2015. Certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 18.09.2015 is being annexed as Annexure No. 05 to this application. That the applicant in jail since 14.09.2015. 17. That the applicant has no criminal history except 18. the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope in future to commit any offence. That there is no chance of the applicant 19. absconding or tempering with the prosecution witnesses. That the applicant is ready to furnished the 20. 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 21. 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 Badshah alias Dada ...Applicant (In Jail) 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 31.07.2015 Annexure No. 2 4. The type of the statement of the victim Annexure No. 3 5. The photo/ type copy of the medical report dated 31.07.2014 Annexure No. 4 6. The type copies of the informant and alleged eyewitness Annexure No. 5 7. Certified copy of the bail rejection order dated 18.09.2015 Memo 8. Lucknow (Dr. Gyan Singh) Advocate Dated : .2015 Counsel for the applicant IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW Criminal Misc. Case No. (B)of 2015 Badshah alias Dada ...Applicant(In Jail) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh ....Opposite Party Annexure No. 2 Type copy Examined Rajni Rawat aged 15 F daughter of Ghanshyam Rawat resident of Dahilamau, Police Station – Kotwali Ngar, dated 31.07.2014 at 5.55P.M. B/B Sharita Dubey HG 1076, Police Station – Kotwali Nagar A black mole on the lower lip medial Injries Abrasion 1cm*.2cm on the Lt. forearm 7 cm below 1. from Lt. elbow joint red color. Opinion – Injury is simple in nature. Caused by rab and object duration fresh. Rt. I attested Sd. Illegible EMO EMO District Hospital District Hospital Pratapgarh Pratapgarh IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW Criminal Misc. Case No. (B)of 2015 Badshah alias Dada ...Applicant(In Jail) Annexure No. 3 c;ku et:c%& jtuh jkor iq=h ?ku”;ke jkor fu0 nfgykeÅ Fkkuk dksrokyh uxj izrkix< iwNus ij crk;k fd ?kVuk vkt yxHkx 1 cts fnu dh gSA Ldwy ls is ykr ?kwlk FkIiM ls ekjs ihVs o Hkn~nh xkyh nsus yxs eSaus tc 'kksj epk;k rks gekjs iMksl ds vkse izdk”k flag ekSds ij igqaps rks oks pkjksa yksx mudks Hkh xkyh xykSt nsus yxs o esjk HkkbZ Hkh ckgj ls ekSds ij igqapk rks mldk eksckby Nhu fy, /khjs /khjs vkl ikl ds yksx Hkh vkds bdB~Bk gksus yxs rks eksckby Qasddj tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsrs gq, Hkkx x;sA ftlds ckn ge Fkkuk x;s eqdnek fy[kk;k o viuh MkDVjh bykt djk;hA ;gh esjk c;ku gSA IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW Criminal Misc. Case No. (B)of 2015 Badshah alias Dada ...Applicant(In Jail) Annexure No. 4 c;ku oknh%& ?ku”;ke jkor iq= ekrk izlkn jkor fu0 nfgykeÅ Fkkuk dksrokyh uxj izrkix< iwNus ij crkrk gS fd ?kVuk vkt nksigj yxHkx 1 cts dh gS esjh yMdh jtuh mez yxHkx 15 o"kZ d{kk 9 dh Nk=k gSA Ldwy ls ?kj okil vk;h rks cxy ds nks yMds ckn”kkg mQZ nknk iq= gseUr flag] vfer iky iq= rqylhjke iky fu0 nfgykeÅ Fkkuk dks0 uxj] izrkix< o nks vU; yksx ftUgsa igpku u lds esjh yMdh tc lkbfdy [kMh djds ?kj ds vanj ?kqlh rks mijksDr pkjksa yksx ?kj ds vanj ?kql x;s rFkk esjh yMdh ds lkFk tksj tcjtLrh ls cykRdkj djus dh dksf”k”k fd;s rFkk euk djus ij pkjksa yMdksa us esjh yMdh dks ykr ?kwlk ewdk FkIiM ls ekjk ihVk rFkk xkyh xqIrk nsus yxs o mlds lkFk NsM[kkuh djus yxs esjh yMdh ds fpYykus ij esjs iMkslh vkse izdk’k nkSMdj vk;s rks mUgsa Hkh xkyh xqIrk nsus ysxs blh nkSjku izkFkhZ dk yMdk Hkh ekSds ij igqapk rks mldk eksckby Nhu fy, ckn esa yksxksa dh HkhM bdB~Bk gksus ij eksckby Qsad dj tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsrs gq, pys x;s ;gh esjk c;ku gSA c;ku xokg p”enhn%& vkse izdk”k iq= pUnz Hkku flag fu0 nfgykeÅ Fkkuk dksrokyh uxj izrkix< iwNus ij crkrk gS fd ?kVuk vkt yxHkx 1 cts dh gSA eSa vius ?kj ij ekStwn Fkk eq>s ?ku’;ke jkor ds ?kj ls fpYykus dh vkokt lqukbZ nh eSa nkSMdj ekSds ij igqapk rks ns[kk fd iMksl ds yMds ckn”kkg mQZ nknk iq= gseUr flag] vfer iky iq= rqylhjke iky nks vU; yMds vKkr ftUgsa eSa igpkurk ugha gWw ?ku’;ke jkor ds ?kj ds vanj mldh yMdh ds lkFk NsMNkM dj jgs Fks eSaus tc mudks euk fd;k rks oks yksx eq>s xkyh xqIrk nsus yxs o jtuh jkor dks ykr ?kwalk o FkIiM ls ekjus yxs 'kksj lqudj /khjs /khjs dkQh yksx bdB~Bk gksus yxs blh chp ?ku”;ke dk yMdk lqHkk"k jkor Hkh igaqp x;k ftldk og yksx eksckby Nhu fy;k o HkhM ns[kdj og yksx eksckby Qasd dj tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsrs gq, pys x;sA eSaus ?kVuk dks ns[kk gS ;gh esjk c;ku gSA