Bail application under section 439 of the code of criminal procedure code 1973

In the court of ___Sessions _____ at ____Gurgram_____

Criminal Misc _________No ____of 20__19___

In the matter

Petitioner /accused : Jagedish Singh

Vs

Manjeet kaur

(Application under section 438 praying for releasing

the accused on bail with /without sureties )

To

The Hon’ble session judge in Gurgram _______________

The humble petition of the petitioner __Jagdish Singh (s/o of Dayal singh
,residing at paramghat village, station –Gyaresene , Chaumoli District ,Uttarakhand
______)___

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. Harnek Singh spearheaded the crime , the old servant on whose behalf this petition is
filed cannot be roped in or there was no necessity to even be there at the House. Thus
as is evidence allegation of Section 302(ipc) , such circumstantial evidence should stand
with only one hypothesis. Under such ambiguities, the benefit of doubt , when ocular
evidence is not reliable, the accused cannot be convicted .In such Cases where facts and
circumstances from which conclusion of guilt was sought to be drawn by the
prosecution was not established beyond reasonable doubt the conviction under section
302 read with section 34 and under section 392 had to be quashed ; Hardyal and Prem
Vs State of Rajasthan . The fact that the wife of the victim lodged a complaint after 2
days raises serious doubts about the veracity /authenticity of the statement or the
police report post which the investigation was conducted on such remarks and pressure.

2. That the petitioner /accused was apprehended or accused of allegation of conspiring

with the main accused ;”Harnek Singh” in disposing of the dead body and frugal remains
of the chopped victim under section 120 B and also under the provisos 201 of the
indian penal code which clearly states when he/she causes disappearance of evidence of
the offence or giving false evidence to screen offender; he will causes the evidence of
the commission of the offence to disappear so as to screen the offender or the main
accused .The accused ,the petitioner Jagdish Singh for whom this petition is filed
 disputes other allegation of receiving a bribery of two lakhs in the absence of clear cut
CCTV footages as evidence, mere circumstantial evidence would not suffice .Only post
the complaint lodged by the complainant ,”Manjeet Kaur ” those confessions which
were extracted from the accused by threat, inducement or promise when irrelevant , acc
to section 24 of the evidence act , if the confession appears to the court to have been
made by an inducement ,threat or promise , an advantageous position lies to the
accused. Also section 25 and 26 should be clubbed and read together so to sustain the
plea of bail in this application, the above confession statement as surfaced in the
documents , infront of a police officer shall not be used as a mere tool to extract
evidence and those confessions are not viable unless the confession was made in the
immediate presence of the magistrate .

3. Section 27 of the Indian evidence act states how much of the information received from
the accused may be proved , when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence
of the information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody , so
much of such information whether it amounts to the fact discovered may be proved
.Also section 302 , Punishment of murder have also been added , purely a non-
cognizable offence and triable only by a Court of Sessions. Section 437 clearly stipulates
, when bail may be granted for non- bailable offences,(1) when any person accused or
suspected of the commission of any non- bailable offence is arrested or detained
without warrant by an officer in charge of police station or appears or is brought before
a court other than the high court or the court of session , may be so released if there
are reasonable grounds for believing he has not committed the so called offence and the
person will not be released if such offence is a cognizable offence and has been
previously been convicted of an offence punishable with death , imprisonment for life
or imprisonment for seven years or more , be released on bail if there are just and
proper conditions.

4. Or if there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a
non- bailable offence , but there are reasonable grounds for inquiry into the guilt the
accused will be subject to the section 446A, pending such an enquiry after the
investigation and thorough check , the servant can be released on bail at the discretion
of the court , at the discretion of such officer or Court ,on the execution by him of a
bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided. Also if the any case
trial able by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not
concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking the evidence
,such person shall , if he is in the custody during the whole of such period ,be released
on bail to the satisfaction of the court /Magistrate otherwise directs .

5. The punishment to be imposed for such criminal conspiracy may maximum be two
years, whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with
death or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years ,shall be punished as if he had
abetted the said offence .But before the person becomes a party to a criminal
conspiracy the ingredients such section 34 IPC , they are required to prove ,that he
along with others have committed in furtherance of a common intention . Most
importantly to bring home the charge of Criminal conspiracy under section 120 B it is
necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an
 unlawful act .Mere circumstantial evidence is inadmissible.

6. The petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence mere circumstantial an
police reports are not bonafide. The allegations stating the servant helped in disposing
off the chopped body into pieces and received a bribe of two lakhs cannot be given any
testimony in the absence of clear cut CCTV footages. The servant was threatened and
forced to kneel down to the orders of the murder henceforth, he merely tried to save
himself from the slaughter. There are no clear cut antecedents to show/ convict the
accused .The sabotage team have conducted a raid in the houses of the murderer ,there
are no clear cut evidence to convict or to cement the allegation raised against the
servant, mostly done by the murderer to shield himself from the fangs of the
prosecution. The servant was falsely accused of accompanying the main accused and his
wife to govind jadmandi , canal for disposing it and he has been deemed falsely to be an
accomplice in the so called crime. The Fact that the stimulating factor for the murder
was non- refund of the money around 50 lakhs so taken by the victim in falsely acquiring
permanent residential status in Canada. The antecedents and character of the accused
of bribing the police official talk about the cunning nature and how he used a false alibi
to shift the burden of disputing the charges so framed.

7. Also he was the employee of the so called murderer, falsely stated from the deposition
he helped in shifting the body to the bathroom of Gurmael Singh, the wife of the
accused. All the physical blows and injuries caused due to the sword and other weapons
are done via the main accused, explicitly showing the workmen to be a merespectator.
The confessions were self-made and could have been cooked up with discrepancies and
falsities, so as to rope in the workmen in the above said crime. Such depositions cannot
stand testimony to the proceeding, also shroud a cloud of doubt upon the intentions of
the accused, the only person who was concerned with the said offence or in other words
to gain an due advantage from the crime was the accused monetarily. By no means was
the servant induced or lured, he could or could have not been bribed which if it did or
did not take place, happened after the entire accident. The wife of the accused who
complained was also killed, all of these could have instilled fear in the worker and he is
merely at the mercy of the main murderer who is culprit.

8. Since the investigation is over, no useful purpose would be served if the petitioner is
denied bail ,the bail application in front the session judge is moved first on 1st of april
2019 .The petitioner is ready to abide by any of the conditions imposed by the
honourable court .The petitioner is permanent of resident of “Village ; Parmagav and
Zilla ; Chaumoli ;Uttarackhand ”. The servant is not a previous convict .

9. No similar bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner /accused in this
honourable or in any other court

PRAYER

In view of the foregoing it is most respectfully prayed that

(a) The petitioner /accused may kindly be admitted to bail on such terms and condition as
this honourable court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and /or;
(b) Pass any further order or order as this honourable court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice .

Prayed accordingly PETITIONER /ACCUSED\

Dated: 1/4/2019 through

COUNSEL “VAIBHAV SHARMA”

_____________