Note 1 PDF
Note 1 PDF
Note 1 PDF
CAUSE TITLE
A …PETITIONER/APPLICANT/APPELLANT ETC
ADDRESS
VS
B …RESPONDENT/OPPOSITE PARTY/DEFENDANT
ADDRESS/POLICE STATION]
[TO
ABOVE NAMED]
- [TECHNICAL PARAGRAPHS]
- LIMITATION
- JURISDICTION
[PRAYER]
VERIFICATION
1 to ___ is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and whatever is stated
in paragraph numbers a to ___ are legal submissions and I believe the same to
Mumbai
V/s.
AN APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF
THE APPLICANT FOR BAIL U/s.437
OF Cr.P.C.
1. The applicant above named has been arrested by the police in the
GROUNDS
motive;
against him;
iii.) That the recovery of the allegedly stolen vehicle has also
investigation;
3. The applicant craves leave from this Hon’ble Court to add, alter
bail on such terms and conditions that your honour may deem
Filed in Court
On: - /12/2018 Advocate for the applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN
DISTRICT : (RATNAGIRI)
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
AND
Versus
1. The applicant is law abiding and peace loving citizen residing at the
The Applicant states that vide impugned order the Learned Judge
dated 05/01/2019.
under:-
had taken her cattle for grazing away from her house at about
10 a.m.
with his own cattle. It is then alleged that the Applicant took
Complainant that he would kill her and her family and hence
Complainant 2-3 times when she would take her cattle for
grazing.
18/2017 u/s 376, 506 of the IPC and sections 3,4 and 12 of
special court. The charge came to be framed against the accused and
that learned Judge was pleased to come to the conclusion that the
prefers the present Bail pending his appeal and Suspension of his
GROUNDS
(a) Thus the order of the Learned Judge is bad in law, perverse and
suffers from patent illegality. That the said order is neither tenable
(b) That the Ld. Special court has miserably failed to appreciate the
evidence and record. Similarly the Ld. Judge has not taken into
(c) The Ld. Special Judge has fairly admitted that the case of the
(d) Therefore the Ld. Special Judge has admittedly thrown out the
herein.
(e) Furthermore the Complainant herself states that the incident of rape
Complainant as questionable.
(f) Similarly the Complainant has never complained about the alleged
so called rape taking place in April of 2017. That only after her
mother realized that the Complainant was pregnant with a child did
(g) That even the age of the Complainant has not been established as
being below 18 at the time of the incident throughout the entire trial.
That the mother of the Complainant has admitted that she is unaware
as to the exact date and year of the birth of the Complainant. The
had passed away 17 years prior to the trial. She has further deposed
that she is not sure if the Complainant was born a year after her
(h) That the Ld. Special Judge has remarked in the judgment that the
submitted that the same cannot be relied upon to ascertain the age of
such documents are insufficient to positively hold that the age of the
(i) The Applicant submits that since the eyewitness testimony is either
unreliable or not forthcoming, the Ld. Special Judge has relied upon
a DNA analysis that alleges that the Applicant is the father of the
DNA kit has not been established by the prosecution. The persons
responsible for drawing the sample or collecting the same from the
(j) Similarly no document or panchanama has been put forth during the
trial does not establish that the DNA kits were sealed at the time of
testing are in the same condition as they were at the time of the
put forth at the trial so as to prove that the samples were even taken
(l) Therefore the weight of evidence would go to show that the case of
(m) That the order passed by the Ld. Special Judge, Ratnagiri, is
justice. The finding of the Ld. Judge that the Applicant herein has
(n) The Ld. Judge erred in law by appreciating the evidence favoring the
(o) That Ld. Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record as well as
facts governing the case. The Ld. Judge failed to appreciate that the
evidence of all the witnesses suffers from material contradictions
(p) The Ld. Judge failed to appreciate that the accused has discharged
possibilities and the case of the accused more trustworthy than that
of the prosecution.
(q) That the Ld. Judge failed to appreciate that no independent witnesses
7. The Applicant submits that in the event of his being released on bail,
pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal by this Hon’ble
Court, the Applicant shall abide by the terms and conditions, which
8. The Applicant states that the Applicant has not preferred any other
10. The applicant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of the
court
(A) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for record and
Appellant in Special Case No. 09/2017 before the Ld. Special Court
at Ratnagiri.
(C) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal,
09/2017 before the Ld. Special Court at Ratnagiri on such terms and
(D) ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (B) and (C) may be
granted;
Mumbai
V/s
--------------------------------------------------
HARSHAWARDHAN SALGAOKAR
Advocates
120, COMMERCE HOUSE,
N.M ROAD, KALA GHODA,
FORT, MUMBAI -23
Email:- hsalgaokar@gmail.com
IN
V/s
INDEX
1. Proforma
2. Memo of Application
3. Exhibit-A
Last Page -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN
V/S
SYNOPSIS
Date Event
April 2016 It is alleged that in April of 2016 the Complainant who was allegedly
a minor had taken her cattle for grazing away from her house at about
10 a.m. The Complainant alleges that the Appellant also followed her
with his own cattle. It is then alleged that the Appellant took the
Appellant then tied the hands of the Complainant with a rope and
28/01/2017 The Complainant was found to be pregnant and an FIR was lodged
Last Page -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
OF CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE
AND
. . . APPLICANT
VERSUS
. . . RESPONDENT
TO,
467, 468, 471, 120 B of Indian Penal code and section 3 and 5 of
custody.
applicant.
Bail before the Ld. Court of Sessions at Thane. That after hearing
the Applicant and the present Respondent, the Ld. Sessions Court
Chargesheet.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the Ld. Sessions Order
GROUNDS
per prosecution. The applicant was not aware about the malafide
D) That the Ld. Sessions Court in its order rejecting Bail has also prima
facie accepted the Applicants contention that his role only extends to
agents who have also received commission and are cited as witness
Lacs was paid to the present applicant. That is the only role
evident on record that other 13 agents were paid more than 2 crores
I) It can be seen from the statement of the Jayashri Kashid, that she
knew accused No. 1 and she asked her relatives to invest in the firm
Shriram Joshi.
J) It would be pertinent to note the statements recorded of one Mr
about the role played by the present applicant. It would not be out of
company and still there are not naming the present applicant at initial
the said statement it can be seen that it is the accused No. 1 and 2
who induced the applicant and other agents to bring the investors for
also important to note that all these witnesses have named other
salary. There after the applicant got introduced to accused No. 1 who
offered him job in his company and promised him similar salary and
note here is that the accused never shared the same intentions as that
of accused No. 1 and 2 and further is not benefited from the illegal
nature and all the documents seized and in possession of the police
N) The accused hails from reputed family and is further detention in the
such terms and conditions the accused will abide by the same
Naupada Police Station under section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468,
Act.
B. any further and other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and
Mumbai
VERSUS
INDEX
1. SYNOPSIS
2. MEMO OF APPICATION
LAST PAGE:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
VERSUS
SYNOPYSIS
Dates Events
POINTS TO BE URUGED
1. Whether prima facie case is made out against the Applicant u/s 406,
420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120 B of Indian Penal code and section 3
3. What Order?
VERSUS
HARSHAD BHADBHADE
HARSHADVB@GMAIL.COM
9820300135