IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS. SAVITRI, LD.

ASJ-02 (NORTH-EAST),
COURT NO. 65, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE VERSUS SHAHRUKH
SC No. 405/2019
FIR No. 363/2019
PS SHASTRI PARK
U/s 394/397/34 IPC
In J/C: 22.07.2019
N.D.O.H- 17.02.2023
SUB: APPLICATION FOR REGULAR BAIL U/S 439 Cr.P.C. ON BEHALF OF
APPLICANT/ACCUSED NAMELY SHAHRUKH S/O SABBIR

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the applicant/accused is falsely implicated in this fabricated case and
currently lodged in CJ-13, Mandoli, Delhi. The applicant/accused is in judicial
custody in the present matter since 22.07.2019 to till date (despite the period
of 06.08.2020 to 22.03.2021). He has already undergone a period of more
than two years and eight months in the present case.
2. That on 22.07.2019, the applicant/accused was arrested by the police officials
in this false and fabricated case, since then he is behind the bar except the
period of interim bail granted by Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 18.06.2020.
He was released from jail on 06.08.2020 and surrender himself in jail on
22.03.2021. The applicant/accused surrendered timely and maintain a good
conduct in jail and interim bail period also.
3. In the present matter FIR was registered on 22.07.2019, charge-sheet was
filed on dated 18.09.2019, charge was framed upon applicant/accused vide
order dated 07.12.2021 and complainant PW1 Salman Mansoori was
completely examined on 06.12.2022. The remaining witnesses are police
officials, hence the apprehension of tampering and threats to the witnesses
is totally ruled out. There is no purpose left in keeping him inside the jail.
4. That in present matter two FIRs were planted wrongfully by the police officials
of same police station upon applicant/accused and he was allegedly shown to
be arrested from the spot, whereas his brother was wrongfully apprehended
by the police and accused was compelled to appear with his father before the
SHO concerned. Due to entire story of the prosecution is false and fabricated.
5. That the trial is pending for disposal before. That the above noted case is
pending before this Hon’ble Court and the same is fixed for recording
prosecution evidence on 17.02.2023.
6. That the deposition of PW-1 Salman Mansoori before this Hon’ble Court and
in RUKKA was totally different, it clearly shows that the applicant/accused has
been falsely implicated in this case as he improved his statements before the
Hon'ble court on material aspects and his improvement is to the extent that
applicant/accused is introduced accused in this case of heinous offence it
clearly creates serious doubt in the case of the prosecution particularly.
7. That the applicant/accused is a young person of 25 years old and belongs to
a poor family and also having responsibility of his family including his parents.
That the applicant/accused is first time offender and never committed such
crimes before this false incident.
8. That the applicant/accused is the resident of H. No. B24/3, 4th Floor, Gali No.1,
Near Gas Agency, Shastri Park, Delhi-110053. So, there is no chance of
absconding or tampering with the evidence, if he may be released on bail.
9. That the applicant/accused is a law abiding and peace-loving citizen of India
and has nothing to do as alleged by the police officials in the abovesaid FIR.
10. That the material prosecution evidence of the present case has been already
undergone therefore no tampering with evidence can take place. Nothing has
been recovered from the possession of applicant/accused, if any same is
planted by the police officials.
11. It has been argued that pre-trial detention of the accused is violation of Article
21 of the Constitution and reliance has been placed on the judgment of Sanjay
 Cnandra Vs CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 to argue that the accused is presumed to be
innocent till he is convicted and bail cannot be denied merely on the ground
of gravity of the offence. Pre-trial detention is also unnecessary burden on
the State.
12. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308, Court opined:
“The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where
there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the
course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences
or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks
enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but
only illustrative.”
13. In Moti Ram v. State of M.P., (1978) 4 SCC 47, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
discussing pre-trial detention, held:
“The consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Defendants
presumed innocent are subjected to the psychological and physical
deprivations of jail life, usually under more onerous conditions than are
imposed on convicted defendants. The jailed defendant loses his job if he has
one and is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence.
Equally important, the burden of his detention frequently falls heavily on the
innocent members of his family.”
14. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC:
“Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be
curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case.”
15. That the applicant/accused is not required any for any further investigation
and no such purpose would be served to keep the applicant/accused in
further judicial custody.
16. That the applicant/accused is ready to furnish reliable surety of the entire
satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court, if the bail is granted to the
applicant/accused.
17. That if bail granted to the applicant/accused, he ensures that, he shall appear
each and every court date before the court as and when directed. The
applicant/accused further declares that he shall abide all the terms and
conditions of Bail.
Prayer

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that under the facts and
circumstances mentioned above, the petitioner/accused may kindly be released
on bail in case FIR No.393/2019, U/S 394/397/34 IPC, Police Station Shastri Park,
Delhi, till the final disposal of the case, in the interest of justice.
It is prayed accordingly.

DELHI
DATED:- 08.12.2022
Applicant/Accused
(Shahrukh S/o Sabbir)
Through the Counsel

Advocate Yashasvi Sharma

G-36, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Mobile No.- 9412054939
Email Id:- [email protected]