IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF HON’BLE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO._______OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Johnson Dass …………Applicant

Versus
The State ………Respondent

INDEX
S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO. COURT FEE
1. Application for Regular Bail
2. Copy of FIR, Copy of order on
Anticipatory Bail dt. 24/12/2020
3. Copy of Order on Revision
Petition Dt. 14/10/2022
4. Vakalatnama

Dated : /09/2023
Delhi
Filed by :-

RANJANA SINGH
ENRL. NO. D-694/2004
AKANKSHA BHADAURIA
ADVOCATE
G-514, CHAMBER BLOCK,
KKD COURT COMPLEX, DELHI-110032
 IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF HON’BLE COURT OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SOUTH-
WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:-

Johnson Dass
S/o Gabriyal Dass
R/o F-2/161 Gali No.5
Mahavir Enclave Part-1
Dabri, New Delhi …………Applicant

Versus
The State ………Respondent

FIR No. 834/2020 dt. 07-11-2020

U/s : 307/34 IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act
P.S. Dabri
N.D.O.H.:
Chargesheet Filed on 02/09/2022
But not committed in Session yet

BAIL APPLICATION U/S 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEEDURE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED
NAMELY JOHNSON DASS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-

1 That the previous bail application has been dismissed as

withdrawn.
2 That the Applicant/Accused above named is a peace

loving and law-abiding citizen.

3 That the Applicant/Accused is an innocent person and has

committed no offence at all as alleged in present matter.

4 That the Applicant/Accused was arrested wrongfully with

the collusion of complaint and police.

5 That the Complainant claimed in the FIR that his mother is

a prime witness in the case bearing FIR no. 206/2018 U/S

302/307 IPC, PS: Netaji Subhash Place, and she gave her

testimony again Sagar@Katto and Ankit@Taru. Because of

this, they attempted to murder the Complainant by

shooting him. However, it is pertinent to mention that the

Applicant/Accused is not named in the above-mentioned

FIR nor is he related to case in anyway. Applicant/Accused

was only made aware of this after he was declared

wanted in the present matter .i.e. 834/2020, PS: Dabri.

Copy of the FIR enclosed herewith.

6 That at the time of happening of incident,

Applicant/Accused was in Noida with his friends which can

be seen clearly seen from CCTV footage of the society,

Gaur City Avenue, Greater Noida, where

 Applicant/Accused was present. CCTV footage as well as

statement of Applicant/Accused’s friend can be provided

as per requirement of the Hon’ble Court.

7 That the Applicant/Accused was informed that he has

been named in the FIR. The Applicant/Accused

immediately contacted his Advocate to inquire the matter,

who advised him to file an Anticipatory Bail. Thereafter

one anticipatory bail was moved on behalf of the

Applicant/Accused which was dismissed on 24/12/2020 by

the hon’ble court Purva Sareen. Copy of the order

attached herewith.

8 That the Applicant/Accused somehow obtained the CCTV

footage from the night of the incident from the society in

Noida where the Applicant/Accused was present. He then

went to the Police Station Dwarka Sec. 16 to prove his

innocence and seek help, but instead he was arrested by

the concerned police officer and was falsely accused of

carrying a weapon. The Police alleged that the

Applicant/Accused was arrested during his attempt to

commit another offence which is a baseless accusation

without any backing of evidence.

9 That the Applicant/Accused was handed over to the

concerned police station. There is no evidence against the

Applicant/Accused which can tie him to the scene of

crime. No CCTV footage is provided despite the offence

happening on a busy street. No solid evidence has been

provided against the Applicant/Accused besides the

weapon which was planted by the police themselves. On

the other hand, the Applicant/Accused kept requesting

police station Dwarka Sec. 16 to which the CCTV footage

and to check his Alibi in Noida, but the police took no

action.

10 That the Applicant/Accused was harassed at the hands of

Police who refused to investigate the matter. Ultimately,

the Applicant/Accused filed an application on 04/01/2022

for calling the CCTV footage and call report to prove his

innocence, in the Court of Ld. MM which was dismissed

vide order dated 25/05/2022. Following that, the

Applicant/Accused filed a revision petition before the

Court of Addl. Sessions Judge which was also dismissed on

14/10/2022 where the hon’ble court clearly stated “by

 way of this application revisionist is trying to bring on

record material .i.e. CCTV, which otherwise cannot be

considered by this Court at the stage of framing of

charge. Things which cannot be done directly cannot be

allowed to be done indirectly, therefore, application for

further investigation for collection of CCTV footage cannot

be allowed.”

With this observation, the Hon’ble Court does not entirely

preclude CCTV footage from the ambit of consideration, it

marely states that such footage can not be considered at

the stage of framing of charges (Para No. 17 of the

order on Revision petition of dated 14/10/2022 by the

Hon’ble Court). Copy of order enclosed herewith-

11 That in the above noted case the chargesheet has been

filed but evidence recording has not started yet which will

take a long time to complete. The Applicant/Accused has

spent nearly 26 months in JC. With the filing of

chargesheet, there is no chance of tempering of the

witness in the present case on part of the

Applicant/Accused.
12 That the Co-Accused, Ankit@Taru having a similar role as

the one alleged on the Applicant/Accused, has been

released on regular bail on 18.05.2021. It is also

pertinent to mention that Ankit@Taru has been

specifically named under the FIR 206/2018 and the

present FIR .i.e. 834/2020.

13 That The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Anil

Kumar @ Neelu vs. State of Himachal Pradesh in

paragraph 36 and 37 of the judgement held that:

36. The argument of the learned State Counsel is that it is

open to different Judges to reject or grant bail to accused

even if their cases stand on same footage. I am unable to

persuade myself to accept this submission of the learned

State Counsel. The High Court is one and each Judge and

each Judge is not a separate High Court. It will be

unfortunate if the High Court delivers inconsistent verdicts

on identical facts. If the argument of the learned State

Counsel is carried further it would mean that even the

same Judge while deciding bail application moved by

several accused, whose cases stand on the same footing,

 is free to reject or grant bail to any one or more of them

at his whim. Such a course would be wholly arbitrary.

37. The public, whose interests all judicial and quasi-

judicial authorities ultimately have to serve, will get a

poor impression of a court which delivers country

decisions on identical facts. Hence for the sake of judicial

uniformity and non-discrimination it is essential that if the

High Court granted bail to one co-accused it should also

grant bail to another co-accused whose case stands on

the same footing. Alexis de Toqueville remarked that the

man’s passion for quality is greater than his desire for

liberty.

14 The Supreme Court in P. Chidambram v. Directorate

of Enforcement has reiterated the “triple test” that may

be satisfied for grant of bail and the same is as under:

i. That the accused is not at “flight risk”.

ii. That there are no chances of tempering with

evidences.
 iii. That there is no likelihood that the accused shall

influence the withess.

Applicant/Accused has been residing at his

address for years with his family who are clearly

dependent on him for their survival, hence,

Applicant/Accused is not a flight risk. Chargesheet

has been filed and there lies no chances of

tempering whit evidence or influencing the

witness.

15 That the Applicant/Accused is the sole breadwinner of the

family and has responsibilities of his wife and old ages

parents. Without him, the condition of his parents has

deteriorated and they require support and care of their

only child.

16 That the Applicant/Accused belongs to a respectable

family and has been continuously residing at the above

said address. Hence, there is no chance of his absconding

to meet the end of justice during the trial of the present

case.
17 That the Applicant/Accused is ready and willing to abide

by each and they condition(s) which may be imposed

upon him while granting him bail in this case.

18 That the Applicant/Accused undertakes to appear before

the Hon’ble court on each and every date of hearing.

19 That the Applicant/Accused may kindly be allowed to urge

any other or further ground that may be available to him

at the time of hearing of this application.

PRAYER:

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that in the

facts and circumstances as aforesaid, this Hon’ble Court

may kindly be pleased to:

i. Grant Regular bail to the Applicant/Accused in FIR FIR No.

834/2020 dt. 07-11-2020 U/s: 307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms

Act P.S. Dabri; AND/OR

ii. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem

fit.
Delhi Petitioner/Applicant
Dated:

Through

(Counsel)
RANJANA SINGH
Enrl. No. D-694/2004
AKANKSHA BHADAURIA
Advocates
G-514, Chamber Block,
KKD Court Complex, Delhi-110032