1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT ABAD

(CITY AND DISTRICT : AHMEDABAD)

CRI. MISC. APPLI. NO. :

OF 2013

ALPESH NAGINBHAI PARMAR

AGED : 23 YRS ONLY; HINDU BY RELIGION; WORKING AS PER DAILY WAGES

RESIDENT OF : 25,JAGJIVAN SOCIETY, NEAR SHARDABEN HOSPITAL, SARASPUR, AHMEDABAD 380 018.

)At present in the Sabarmati Jail Since the date of arrest i.e. FROM DECEMBER 25 OF 2012( ......... APPLICANT

VERSUS

DECUCCA LAIIGIRO

THE STATE

......... RESPONDENT

(Notice to be served through the Ld. Public Prosecutor, having his office at Honble High Court of Gujarat.)

AN APPLICATION U/S.439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 3791

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWTH THAT.........

1.

The applicant submits that he is forwarding this application u/s 439 of the Code of the Cri.Pro.,1973 praying to seek regular bail whose trial is ongoing before the Honble Additional City Sessons Court wide Sessions Case No.: 255 of 2013[in connection with the I CR No.:229/2012 of Shahibaug Police

2
Station; Complaint registered on November 02, 2012 ; under
S.363,366 and 376 of IPC]. [JOINT ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT (EXHIBIT NO. 09) & ITS TYPED COPY]

2.

The said Sessions Case of this applicant has already been committed on the board of the Honble Court and till the date of filing of this application FIVE witnesses have been examined on oath wherein neither of them supports the Case of Prosecution. The Principle Prosecution Witness or the Star Witness of the Prosecution i.e. the Prosecutrix has completely denied the Case of Prosecution.
[JOINT ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE SO CALLED VICTIM ON OATH.]

3.

The accused /applicant aged 23 years was arrested by the police on December 25 of 2012 i.e. more than 9 months. The applicants parents are dead and he has to look after his only sister named JYOTIKA aged about 17 yrs.

4.

The applicant has recently preferred a regular bail after the prosecution has examined certain crucial witnesses before the honourable trial court. And even after that no evidence has been adduced against the present applicant by

prosecution side the application placed before

3
the trial court wide Cr.M.A.No. : 3671/2013 has been rejected without the apt application of the judicial mind in toto.
[ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE LATEST FILED BAIL APPLICATION & THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE TRIAL COURT]

5.

Hence this application for seeking regular bail is filed before this Honble Court under the following grounds :

(a) The applicant is a citizen of our country and is entitled to

the rights guaranteed under the Most Honble

Constitution of India.

(b) The applicant is quite innocent and he has not committed

any offence whatsoever alleged in the complaint.

(c) So far as the question of the applicants innocence is

concerned the prosecutrix has specifically denied all the aspects on which prosecution stands for their case. During her deposition before the honourable trial court she asserts on oath in the EXAMINATION IN CHIEF that [ORIGINAL WORDINGS OF HERS AT PARA : 02]

. . . . . .

4
Further she asserts on oath that [para : 03] . . . Above and all in her CROSS EXAMINATION she replies on oath that [ORIGINAL WORDINGS OF HERS AT
PARA :14 to 18 Page No. 6 to 8]

. . . . .

5
. . . . . .

6
. . . . . . . Now no case has been left for the accused / applicant, hence applicant should not be kept unnecessary behind the bars. (d) Even the other crucial witnesses have not supported the
case of prosecution and now nothing is left on the side of prosecution that can be said firm footing on which accused can be convicted even after the completion of trial.
[JOINT ANNEXURE D CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE DEPOSITIONS OF THE OTHER WITNESSESL MARKED AS a, b, c, d]

7
PW-1 EXHBIT : 08 FATHER OF THE SAID VICTIM : [JOINT ANNEXURE D.MARK : a]

The

complainant

named

BALDEVBHAI

SOLANKI

of this case has bluntly said in

his examination in chief before the trial court on oath that [Concluding part of the Page - 03]

.
And in his entire examination in chief [PW-1] did not mention that the present applicant had taken away his daughter and had developed any sorts of relations.
PW- 03 EXHBIT : 11 MOTHER OF THE SAID VICTIM : [JOINT ANNEXURE D.MARK : b ]

. . . .

8
. . . . . . .
PW- 04 ; EXHBIT : 12 was declared hostile and in his cross-examination he says L
[JOINT ANNEXURE DMARK : c Para : 4 Page-2]

. .
PW 05 ; EXHBIT : 13 also did not support the prosecution case. He states in his cross-examination that
[JOINT ANNEXURE D.MARK : d Para : 4 Page-2]

. .

9
(e) The applicant most respectfully submitted the following
authority of the Honble Supreme Court wherein the OBJECT OF BAIL is elaborated and discussed. We pray before this Honble Court that kindly appreciate our above submissions in the light of the following authority. CASE LAW :

Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. 2132 CRI. L. J. )202 Coram : G. S. SINGHVI

AND H. L. DATTU, JJ. ( Division Bench )

In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from

the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must
be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe

more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is
deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most

10
extraordinary circumstances. Apart

from the question of

prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.
)Para. :14)

(f)

In the light of truth and justice kindly protect the precious loss of young human LIFE now unnecessarily languishing in jail.

(g) The applicant assures the court that he shall abide by all
the terms and conditions of bail as would be prescribed by my lord.

(h) The copy of the prosecution is attached herewith. (i)

The copy of the VAKALATNAMA duly signed before the Jail Authority is submitted herewith.

(j)

The applicant has not filed any other application with regard to the same subject-matter of this application in any Court of Law in India except referred to hereinabove.

11
PRAYER
Looking to the above facts, fundamental rights of the applicant, case laws and genuine grounds .. THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
1.) Admit and entertain this application. 2.) Release applicant on REGULAR BAIL in connection with the FIR registered against him on 02 November of 2012 wide I CR No.: 229/2012 of Shahibaug Police Station,Ahmedabad; for the offence punishable under Section : 363,366 and 376 of IPC. 3.) Prescribe such other terms and conditions as may be deemed necessary to meet the end of justice. 4.) May be pleased to dispense with the filing of the affidavit of the applicant, as he is in Judicial Custody.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL FOR EVER PRAY. AHMEDABAD OF 2013 ___________________
MR. ANAND BRAHMBHATT

ADVOCATE