IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE AMRITSAR

FIR NO 354/2022

U/S 420, 465,467,4678,471 AND 120-B IPC

P.S. CIVIL LINE

STATE

VERSUS

SUNNY MAHAJAN S/O RAVINDER KUMAR R/O VILLAGE NAVE NAG

Bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C

The Applicant Submits as under:

1. That the applicant was arrested in connection with F.I.R No. 354/22, u/s
420,465,467,468,471,120-B I.P.C
2. That a bail petition was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sh.
Aashish Saldi on the ground that the applicant has been falsely implicated in
this case.
But the Hon’ble Court of JMIC has rejected the bail application (copy of the
order dated 31.03.023 attached). The grounds of the rejection of bail
application as given in the impugned order are as under-:

“ The allegations against the accused applicant are serious in nature’’ and
“that the offences punishable u/s 467 I.P.C carries imprisonment which may
extend upto imprisonment for life”.

3. That the present appeal against the impugned orders is filed on the following
grounds-:
(i) The ratio desidendi in disposal of the present bail applicant is in-
judications and patently wrong. That the sale condition for rejection of
bail application is “seriousness of the offence” while the basic law of the
bail is Triple Test
 The ascestainment of whether the accused is at flight or possibility of tempering
with the evidence or influencing the witness. But the Hon’ble Court of Magistrate
has not into the matter on the basis of triple test.
(ii) That no minimum sentence is prescribed u/s 467 I.P.C. Therefore , the seriousness of
the offences u/s 467 I.P.C will depend upon the facts and circumstances of individual
case, and sec 467 I.P.C per se cannot be the ground for rejection of bail application.
(iii) That weather the documents alleged as forged are really forged or genuine can be
found from the scrutiny of the alleged documents , during trial of the case. At this
stage , prima facie commission offence of forgery on the basis of the bald statement
cannot make the accused guilty of offencd and that whether the offence u/s 467 I.P.C
has actually been committed can only be proved during the trial of the offence. Till
the date commission of offences has not been prima facie established.
(iv) That the applicant / accused has been presumed to be guilty of offence u/s 467 I.P.C
by the court of Magistrate of first class while deciding the present bail applications
which is anti-thesis of doctrine “that the accused is presumed not guilty till charges
against him are proved beyond doubt i.e the doctrine followed by legal fraternity in
India.
(v) That it has been repeatedly made clear by the Apex Court that it is the constitutional
duty of the Court to ensure there is no arbitrary deprivation of personal liberties in
the face of excess of state Power “Bail is a rule and Jail an exception’’ The Hon’ble
court Magistrate has.
4. Fresh grounds for consideration of the hon’ble court:
(i) That the alleged document was executed in the year 2013 and the complainant is
real maternal uncle of the applicant /accused. The applicant has signed the alleged
document on the request of the complainant/ vendor . Though the applicant have
no knowledge of the dispute between the vendor (now complainant ) and the other
accused person of the case (then proposed purchaser of the property). But it is
learnt that the proposed purchasers(now accused) were threating the complainant
(then vendor) of filing civil suit under Specific Relief Act 1963. And to circumvent the
opposite party (now accused) from seeking relief from the civil court, the
complainant (then vendor) has lodged an F.I.R.
Since the applicant is signatory as witness on the document therefore his name has
also appeared in the F.I.R
(ii) That the applicant know the truth that the alleged document was actually signed
between the parties and the applicant affixed his signatures as witness on the
request of the complainant of the F.I.R, who is real maternal uncle(mama) of the
applicant /accused. However , this is for the trial court to actually decide about the
bona fide of the alleged document during the trial.
(iii) That the trial of the case is likely to take long time , meanwhile no useful purpose will
be served by incarcerating the applicant in the jail.
(iv) That the applicant is not a habitual criminal, and the applicant has no past history of
commission of any criminal offence or criminal activity.
(v) That the lodging the applicant in the company of hardened criminal in the jail is likely
to adversely affect the psyche and mind set of the applicant , as such it may prove
counterproductive to keep him in the jail along with other criminals.
(vi) That there is neither a mechanism to compensate a man found innocent late on ,
nor could acquittal return valuable time, energy, status , future of family especially
the children, lost during incarceration of a breadwinner and that the applicant is only
bread winner of his nuclear family
(vii) That the object of pre-trial arrest, and denial of the bail is to secure the appearance
of the accused at the time of trial. And the applicant / accused being very close
relative of the complainant, no risk of absconding as large number of common
near relatives of the complainant and the applicant exit and the whereabout of the
applicant will always be known to these common-near -relatives.
A part from this alleged document