IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE,

PATIALA

Nitin Kumar aged about ___ year son of Mahesh

Goyal R/o H.No. F-1/223, F Block , Mangol Puri,
North West Delhi, Delhi-110083.
...Applicant/petitioner

VERSUS
(1) State of Punjab
(2) SHO/I.O. Arresting Officer, of P.S. Patran
....Respondents
FIR No. 16 Dated 26.01.2025
U/s 303 (2) of BNS
P.S. Patran, District Patiala
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF B.N.S.S,
being moved by the applicant in this Hon’ble Court to
grant bail and in the meantime , for staying the arrest of
the applicant and for issuance of necessary directions to
the concerned SHO/ IO P.S. Patran to release the applicant
on bail in the event of his arrest in the aforesaid false case
/ FIR.
No other such or similar bail application is pending nor
any such application was earlier filed or has been finally
 decided by any court of competent or limited jurisdiction
regarding the same matter as is involved herein.
.

Sir,

The Applicant respectfully submits as under:-

1. That prima facie no case is made out against the

applicant and the police of P.S. Patran is falsely

implicate the applicant in the above noted case.

2. That the applicant is respectable person of his locality

and respects the law from the core of his heart and

has never done any act against the society and is

leading a peaceful family life.

3. That the bare perusal of the FIR reveals that no

offence under sections 303 (2) of BNS is made out

against the applicant. In fact, the falsely implicated

the above said FIR by the Police.

4. That the applicant has no link or concern with the

allegations leveled in the FIR and there is not even an

 iota of evidence to connect the applicant with the

alleged crime.

5. That Police Officials P.S. Patran started raiding the

house of the applicant and also police officials were

continuously calling applicant from their numbers and

stated his to come at Police station but the officers

were not informing anything which they threatening

to make the arrest of the applicant and threatened

the applicant that they will arrest the applicant in

some false case in connection with some non-bail-

able offence as such, applicant has apprehension of

his arrest in any false case. So the applicant filed an

Anticipatory Bail application.

6. That nothing is to be recovered from the applicant, so

his custodial interrogation is uncalled for, therefore, it

is fit and proper case, where benefit of anticipatory

bail can be granted to the applicant.

7. That Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled “Arnesh

Kumar v/s state of Bihar and Another” has

held that:

A. An arrest should not be made for the sole reason

that the offence is non-bailable and cognizable

and that it is lawful for the police officer to do

so.

B. The existence of the power to arrest and the

justification for its exercise are two very different

things. The police officers must be able to justify

the reasons for the exercise of such power.

C. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a

mere allegation of commission of an offence

made against a person. While interpreting

Section 41 of Cr.P.C. (35 to 35 (6) of BNSS Act

2023), the Court held that before an arrest is

done by a police officer, he should have reason

to believe based on information and material that

the accused has committed the offence and the

 police officer has to be satisfied that the arrest is

necessary for one or the more purposes as

provided under sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause

(1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. now (35 to 35 (6) of

BNSS Act 2023),

8. That in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory

bail, he will not, directly or indirectly, make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person, fully

acquainted with the facts of the present false case,

so as to dissuade his from disclosing such alleged

facts to the Hon’ble Court or to the Police authorities.

9. That the applicant undertakes not to tamper with the

prosecution evidence and not to threaten the

witnesses relating to the case.

10. That the applicant is ready and willing to join the

investigation of the case as and when required by the

police or as per the directions of the Hon’ble Court

and the custody of the applicant is not required by

 police at all as nothing is to be recovered from the

applicant.

11. That the petitioner/applicant further undertakes to

appear before the I.O. as and when directed by this

Hon’ble Court or as and when called.

12. That the applicant is ready to abide by all the

conditions imposed upon him by this Hon’ble Court

and further undertakes to appear before the I.O. as

and when directed by this Hon’ble Court or as and

when called.

13. That the applicant is permanent resident of aforesaid

address, therefore there is no apprehension of his

absconding or jumping over the bail.

Prayer:
It is, therefore, prayed that the application may
kindly be accepted and the SHO/I.O, P.S. Patran may kindly be
directed to release the applicant on bail in the above noted
case.
It is, further prayed that during the pendency of the
bail application, the applicant may kindly be allowed interim
bail.
Note: Submitted by:

This is first bail application

u/s 482 BNSS and there is
no such bail application is
pending or decided by any
court. ...Applicant
Through counsel:
Dated:
GURVEER SINGH ROHTI
Advocate