File size: 16,135 Bytes
2b7e388 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 |
Prompt:
Generate a Bail Application involving the following key legal details:
- CASE: Crime No. 206 of 2013
- 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 2014
Shailesh Kumar Pandey aged about 21 years son of Lalji
Pandey resident of Village – Lakharahaa, Police Station
– Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh
.....Applicant
(In Jail)
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh
.....Opposite Party
Case Crime No. 206 of 2013
Under section 302/506 I.P.C.
Police Station - Sangipur
District – Pratapgarh
Bail application rejected by the ASJ,
Room No. 2, Pratapgarh on 06.08.2014
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 : .2014 Counsel for the applicant
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD,
LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
Criminal Misc. Case No. (B)of 2014
Shailesh Kumar Pandey …Applicant
(In Jail)
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh ....Opposite Party
AFFIDAVIT
(In support of bail application)
I, Anjani Kumar Mishra aged about 50 years son of
Matapher resident of Village – Lakharahaa, Police
Station – Sangipur, District – Pratapgarh, Religion –
Hindu, Education – High School, Occupation –
Agriculture, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on
oath as under :-
That the deponent is the neighbour of the
1.
applicant duly authorized by the applicant to
file the aforesaid application before this
Hon'ble Court and as such he is fully conversant
with the facts of the case and deposed as under.
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 F.I.R. has
3.
been lodged against the applicant and three other
persons on 22.11.2013 by the wife of the deceased
namely Rajpati under section 302/506 I.P.C., on
the basis of wrong fact and due to malafide
intension. Informant stated in the first
information report that the applicant and other
accused beaten the deceased by hand and foot at
6:30 PM on 22.11.2013. The copy of the first
information report is being annexed as Annexure
No. 01 to this application.
That after the lodging the first information
4.
report police reached to the place of occurrence
and prepare the inquest report on very same day.
That the investigation officer sends the body of
5.
the deceased for the post mortem on 23.11.2013 in
District – Pratapgarh at 3.00 PM. The copy of the
post mortem report is being annexed as Annexure
No. 02 to this application.
That the investigation officer recorded the
6.
statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. eyewitness
namely Rajpati recorded on 24.11.2013. There are
many contradictions in the statement of informant
and in first information report. The copy of the
statement of informant and eyewitness under
section 161 Cr.P.C. is being annexed as Annexure
No. 03 collectively to this application.
That in first information report made general
7.
allegations by the informant but in the statement
of under section 161 Cr.P.C. she changes her
version and specifically assigned the roll of the
accused persons. That this is well proved the
informant is not present at the place of
occurrence.
That the investigation officer recorded the
8.
statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. after the
post mortem report. After the perusal of the post
mortem report, the investigation officer of the
case changed the first information report version
and assigned the specifically roll to the
applicant.
That the investigation officer record only one
9.
eyewitness namely Kalawati, not any other
eyewitness under section 161 Cr.P.C. The
informant stated in his statement some other
villagers are seen the whole incident but she not
disclosed any name in the statement.
That the eyewitness is sister of the deceased and
10.
she is interested witness in the case.
That the deceased was heavy drinker and patient
11.
of asthma; he was murdered by unknown persons any
other place and applicant was falsely implicated
in the case crime.
That the deceased was always create nuisance
12.
after the drinking the alcohol. The applicant is
neighbour of the deceased and he was always
giving Gali to all of neighbours when the
applicant tries to stop him, he was always
quarrelling with the applicant.
That at the time of incident the deceased and his
13.
real brother are quarrelling with each other and
create lot of nuisance. When the applicant goes
to stop both of them but when the applicant
reaches on the spot, he has seen the dead body of
the deceased.
That since the applicant has not committed any
14.
offence as alleged but he has been falsely
implicated in the case by the informant in
malafide intention.
That there is no any motive to murder of deceased
15.
and same was not stated by the prosecution.
That no any involvement in the said case as
16.
alleged in first information report, the
applicant has no reason to murder the deceased.
That the applicant has been surrender before the
17.
court below on and his bail application has
been rejected by the court concerned on
06.08.2014. The copy of the order dated
06.08.2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 04 to
this application.
That the applicant in jail since and has
18.
no criminal history.
That during investigation, the investigation
19.
officer includes the electric and laltain at the
time of the incident, in the statement of the
informant for the implementation of the applicant
in the said case crime.
That as per the roster system of the electricity
20.
department in the incident area was 07:00 PM
onwards at the time of the incident.
That the Hon'ble Court enlarged the co-accused of
21.
the case crime by order dated 10.01.2014 passed
in Criminal Misc. Case No. 184 (B) of 2014 (Amit
Pandey Versus State of Utter Pradesh). The copy
of the order dated 10.01.2014 is being annexed as
Annexure No. 05 to this application.
That the applicant is innocent and due to enmity
22.
with informant falsely implicated in the
aforesaid case crime.
That the applicant has no criminal history except
23.
the aforesaid false case and not likely to hope
in future to commit any offence.
That there is no chance of the applicant
24.
absconding or tempering with the prosecution
witnesses.
That the applicant is ready to furnished the
25.
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
26.
and necessary in the interest of justice that the
applicant be enlarged on bail during pendency of
case.
Lucknow
Date : 2014 Deponent
VERIFICATION
I, the deponent, do hereby verify that the
contents of para 1 to 24 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: 2014 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 he 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 2014
Shailesh Kumar Pandey …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 copy of the F.I.R. dated
22.11.2013
Annexure No. 2
4.
The copy of the post mortem
report
Annexure No. 3
5.
The copy of the statement of
informant and eyewitness under
section 161 Cr.P.C
Annexure No. 4
6.
The copy of the order dated
06.08.2014
Annexure No. 5
7.
The copy of the order dated
10.01.2014
Vakalatnama/Power
8.
Lucknow (Dr. Gyan Singh)
Advocate
Dated : .2014 Counsel for the applicant
|