BAIL FIR- SECTION- 376, 506, 323 IPC in Marathi

 BAIL 

FIR- U/S- 376, 506, 323 IPC

In The Court Of District & Sessions Judge,

 East Delhi Bail Application No. _______ / 2017 

In The Matter Of:- 

Mr. …….Petitioner 

V E R S U S 

The State …… Respondent 

FIR No: ………..(Dated:-----------) PS: 

New Nagar US: ,,,,,,,,,OF IPC District-East Delhi 

INDEX 

Srl. No. Particulars Page No. 1. Application for Bail, U/S-439 of Cr.P.C. 01-08 

2. Annexure -P-1 Copy of the FIR 09-11 

3.. Annexure -P-2 Copy of the Photographs 12-37

 4.. Annexure -P-3 Copy of a undertaking procured by the Complainant from the Petitioner that he will get their alleged marriage registered in the Court. She also alleges in the same undertaking that her third child is fathered by the Petitioner. 38 

5. Annexure -P-4 Copy of a Fee-Receipt, dated-25.08.2014, showing the address of the sister of the Complainant, named, Soni Kumari, to be the flat of the Petitioner where the Complainant would live. 39 

6. Annexure -P-5 Copy of the Statement of the Account of the bank of the Petitioner 40-54 

7. Vakalatnama

PETITIONER [In Judicial Custody]

 THROUGH 

, ADVOCATE, 

(Enrolment No.-D/55/1995) (COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) LAWYERS’ CHAMBERS, ………………..

In The Court Of District & Sessions Judge, East Delhi Bail Application No. _______ /2017 

In The Matter Of:-

 Mr. 

 R/o …...Petitioner 

V E R S U S 

The State Through) …… Respondent

 FIR No: 0493 of 2017 (Dated: 28/08/2017) PS: New Ashok Nagar US: 376/506/323 OF IPC District-East Delhi Petition Under Section 439 Of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, 

For Grant Of Bail MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- 

1. That the Petitioner is a law abiding Citizen. He however, has been falsely implicated by the Police by lodging against him completely vexatious, false, frivolous and baseless FIR. The Copy of the FIR is annexed herewith this Petition as an Annexure-P-1. 

2. That the Petitioner was arrested by the Police on 28.08.2017. He had fully cooperated in the investigations and consequently the Police did not seek his Police Custody (PC), and consequently, he was sent to the judicial custody (JC) on 29.08.2017. He is, therefore, behind the bars for nearly 14 days.

 3. The Petitioner and the Complainant are both married persons. The Complainant got married in 2008. Both are merely 10th class/ 12th class pass. Both are known to each other for quite a long time, i.e. long before 2008, as they were neighbors in …..Village, Delhi prior to the marriage of the Complainant. After marriage, the Complainant shifted to Kolkata and the Petitioner began to live in ….Delhi-96. The family of the Complainant had already shifted to Khora Colony, Ghaziabad, UP, which is hardly about 2 Km. from the residence/office of the Petitioner, the alleged place of occurrence. 

4. That in the year, 2010, the Complainant got back to Delhi and began to live in in a rented, ……….., Delhi-96. The husband of the Complaint began to work with the Petitioner. The office/flat of the Petitioner was/is also in the same colony at …………..Delhi-96. 

5. That in the year, …… the Petitioner housed the Complainant in one of the floor of his office/flat at ………….Flats, ………. Delhi-96.

 6. That the allegations in the FIR are as follows: Allegations in the FIR: 

7. That the Petitioner had made a film/video of the Complainant while she was taking bath in the bathroom of his office/flat and subsequently made physical relationship with her by threatening her that either she should obey, or else he would make her bathing video viral. The Petitioner also threatened the Complainant not to tell about her relationship with him to anyone or else he would defame her by revealing to all that she had a boyfriend before her marriage. 

8. That the Petitioner would make physical relations with her repeatedly on the same pretext that he would be defaming her by revealing to all that she had a boyfriend. While being intimate, the Petitioner made Several other videos and threatened to destroy her if she ever told about the same to anyone. When she opposed the Petitioner, he had several times beaten her and her children and tried to set her house on fire. 

9. That the Petitioner had married the Complainant in a closed room and had made a video of the marriage too. 

10. That the Petitioner had a bad eye on the sister of the Complainant. 

11. That the Petitioner and the Complainant had physical relationship between the period 2012 to 2017. On getting fed-up, the Complainant ran away from the flat of the Petitioner on 26.02.2017. Submissions Vis-a-Vis The Allegations Leveled In The FIR: 

12. That on the alleged threat of making bathing video viral the Petitioner would like to state that the Petitioner has not made any such video nor has he ever had any camera in his bathroom to do that. This averment of the Petitioner gets strengthened from the fact that the Complainant has not specified the day, or date, or time when she took the alleged bath in the bathroom of the Petitioner. She also fails to specify as to when she first time became physically intimate with the Petitioner. It is submitted that Complainant and the Petitioner came in contact with each other quite naturally, they being family friends and known to each other for a very long time. No one compelled, or induced or pressurized anyone. Even otherwise, it was an utterly insufficient/superficial reasoning, which the Complainant has allegedly given to get physically intimate with the Petitioner. It is beyond comprehension as to how a bathing video could bring shame to her and her family, as also what stopped her from complaining to the Police if it was so. It happens almost every other day that the females get such miscreants sent behind the bars for secretly video-graphing/photographing them. Not even a rustic and totally uneducated female would get physically intimate owing to the alleged threat. 

13. That as for several other videos, the Petitioner would like to state that the same were not made at the instance of the Petitioner. On the contrary, it was the Complainant who had an acute habit of getting herself filmed/video-graphed/photographed while being nude. It would be relevant to mention herein that the Complainant was so much fond of her nudity that she would send the Petitioner her nude videos on his phone/whatsApp etc. not on one occasion or two, but on numerous occasions. Her allegations about a singular instance of video-graphing her in the bathroom and then she getting blackmailed by the Petitioner holds no ground, the same being false, baseless and concocted. The Petitioner is filing along with this application numerous photographs fully substantiating the averments of the Petitioner. The said Photographs, Videos, Video-Callings are self-explanatory and speak volumes about the comfort and coziness which the two enjoyed. The said photographs are annexed herewith this Petition as Annexure P-2 (Colly.) The Petitioner has also handed over to the Police one pen-drive containing numerous Photographs, Videos, Video-Callings, Phone Calls, etc. involving the Complainant and the Petitioner. He has also given a copy of the said pen-drive to his Counsel. The contents of the said pendrive can be ascertained from the Police. The Counsel of the Petitioner also has instructions to place the copy of the said pen-drive on the record of this Hon’ble Court subject to the permission of this Hon’ble Court.