Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 510 views

    Indore High Court Bail

    Uploaded by

    Rituparn Uniyal
    1) Manoj Berva has filed a 5th criminal appeal seeking bail in a case where he is accused along with others of murder and atrocities against scheduled castes. 2) He has been in jail since November 2016 and his previous 4 bail applications have been dismissed. 3) He claims that he had no acquaintance or contact with the other accused prior to the crime, and that he only provided shelter to one of the accused, his relative Kuldeep, without knowing of their criminal intentions. 4) He argues that the charge sheet does not establish any conscious or active role by him in the commission of the crime, and that he had no knowledge of the mobile phones hidden in his house by

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Indore High Court Bail

    Uploaded by

    Rituparn Uniyal
    510 views8 pages
    1) Manoj Berva has filed a 5th criminal appeal seeking bail in a case where he is accused along with others of murder and atrocities against scheduled castes. 2) He has been in jail since November 2016 and his previous 4 bail applications have been dismissed. 3) He claims that he had no acquaintance or contact with the other accused prior to the crime, and that he only provided shelter to one of the accused, his relative Kuldeep, without knowing of their criminal intentions. 4) He argues that the charge sheet does not establish any conscious or active role by him in the commission of the crime, and that he had no knowledge of the mobile phones hidden in his house by

    Original Description:

    Regular Bail Application

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Manoj Berva has filed a 5th criminal appeal seeking bail in a case where he is accused along with others of murder and atrocities against scheduled castes. 2) He has been in jail since November 2016 and his previous 4 bail applications have been dismissed. 3) He claims that he had no acquaintance or contact with the other accused prior to the crime, and that he only provided shelter to one of the accused, his relative Kuldeep, without knowing of their criminal intentions. 4) He argues that the charge sheet does not establish any conscious or active role by him in the commission of the crime, and that he had no knowledge of the mobile phones hidden in his house by

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    510 views8 pages

    Indore High Court Bail

    Uploaded by

    Rituparn Uniyal
    1) Manoj Berva has filed a 5th criminal appeal seeking bail in a case where he is accused along with others of murder and atrocities against scheduled castes. 2) He has been in jail since November 2016 and his previous 4 bail applications have been dismissed. 3) He claims that he had no acquaintance or contact with the other accused prior to the crime, and that he only provided shelter to one of the accused, his relative Kuldeep, without knowing of their criminal intentions. 4) He argues that the charge sheet does not establish any conscious or active role by him in the commission of the crime, and that he had no knowledge of the mobile phones hidden in his house by

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 8

    BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA

    PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE

    (APPELLANT IN JAIL SINCE 14.11.2016)


    Cr. A. of 2019

    APPELLANT: Manoj @Nepal S/O Satyanarayan Berva


    Age: 30 Years, Caste: Berva
    R/o 144, Kala Patthar, Indore Road,
    District: Ujjain (M.P.)

    Versus

    RESPONDENT: State of Madhya Pradesh


    Through P.S. Industrial Area Ratlam

    FIFTH CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 14A (2) SCHEDULE CASTE AND


    SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989
    READ WITH SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
    PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR GRANT OF BAIL.

    Whether any bail application Particulars of Bail Application


    is pending before or already
    disposed of by (If yes, give
    particulars) Number Date of Result
    order

    Hon’ble Supreme court of N.A. N.A. N.A.


    India

    Hon’ble High Court Cr. A 74/17 13.04.2017 Dismissed


    as
    Withdrawn

    Cr. A. 25.10.2017 Dismissed


    1290/17
    Cr. A. 07.02.2018 Dismissed
    1046/18
    Cr. A. 06.02.2019 Dismissed
    183/19 as
    Withdrawn

    Spl. St. No. 06.01.2018 Dismissed


    280/16
    Court(s) subordinate to High
    court(s)

    Particulars of Crime Particulars of


    Impugned Order

    -Crime No: 856/2016 -Cr. A: 183/2019


    -Police Station: Industrial Area , -Name of the Judge:
    Ratlam Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. K. Awasthi
    -District - Ratlam -Designation of the Court:
    -Offence u/s: 212/120B r/w Hon’ble High Court of M.P.
    302/307/294/34 IPC and 3(2)(5) - Place: Indore
    SC ST Act, 1989 -Date of the Order: 06.02.2019

    It is most humbly and respectfully submitted on behalf of


    the Applicant/accused as under:

    1. That, as per instruction given by the applicant/accused,


    this is 5 t h Criminal Appeal under section 14 A(2) of SC
    ST Act, 1989 read with section 439 Cr.P.C. for
    bail/release of appellant before this Hon’ble High Court
    of M.P., Bench at Indore .
    2. That, the appellant/petitioner declares that he has not
    filed any application under section 439 of the Code of
    Criminal Procedure before any court or the Hon’ble
    Supreme Court and the same is not pending or decided.

    FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF:

    1. That the case of the prosecution is that on 07.11.2016

    at 10:30 PM complainant Dharmendra along with his

    friends Durgesh, Daulat Chawda, Anand Chawda and

    Dharmendra @ Kalu Anda were sitting and smoking

    near Samshan Ghat Temple, Rajeev Nagar when

    accused Ankit @Jata, Rahul Tai along with other two


    accused persons came in two motorcycles and started

    abusing. Anand Chawda asked the accused persons

    not to abuse them and their family members on the

    mean time accused Ankit @Jata and other co -accused

    caught hold of Anand and Ankit @Jata started stabbing

    him in stomach and chest. It is further alleged that

    when Dharmesh @Dharmendra and Daulat Chawda

    interceded they were also caught hold by the accused

    persons and stabbed in chest, stomach and legs.

    Further the four of the accused fled away on their

    respective bikes. The complainant Dharmendra and

    Durgesh with the help of local persons took injured

    Anand, Daulat and Dharmesh to Hospital where they

    were declared dead and a case was registered vide

    Crime No. 856/16 u/s 302, 294, 34 IPC at PS

    Industrial Area, Ratlam.

    2. That on 30.12.2016 the appellant filed 1 s t regular bail

    application before the Ld. Special Judge, SC ST Act,

    Ratlam under section 439 Cr.P.C . The Ld. Trial court

    was pleased to dismiss the said bail application vide

    order dated 30.12.2016. Copy of order dated

    30.12.2016 rejecting 1st bail applicat ion is annexed

    herewith as Annexure A/1.

    3. That the Appellant/Petitioner filed 1st appeal under

    section 14(A)(2) SC ST Act r/w section 439 Cr .P.C.

    before this Hon’ble Court being Cri. A. No. 74/2017


    seeking release of the applicant which was withdrawn

    by the Appellant/Petitioner herein vide order dated

    13.04.2017 of this Hon’ble Court . Copy of order dated

    13.04.2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure A/2.

    4. That the Appellant/Petitioner filed 2 n d appeal u/s

    14(A)(2) SC ST Act before this Hon’ble Court being Cri.

    A. No. 1290/2017 seeking release of

    Appellant/Petitioner. This Hon'ble Court vide its order

    dated 25.10.2017 was pleased to dismiss appeal for

    bail of the Appellant/Petitioner. The copy of order

    dated 25.10.2017 is annexed herewith as Annexure

    A/3.

    5. That the Ld. Trial court in the meantime framed

    charges against the Appellant/Petitioner under section

    212 IPC initially. That the Ld. Special Judge, SC ST

    Act, further, altered/added section 120 -B IPC against

    the Appellant/Petitioner.

    6. That the Appellant/Petitioner again filed a second

    regular bail application before the Ld. Special Judge,

    SC ST Act, Ratlam which was dismiss ed by the Ld.

    Session Court vide order dated 06.01.2018 . The order

    dated 06.01.2018 is annexed as Annexure A/4.

    7. That the Appellant/Petitioner filed 3 r d appeal u/s

    14(A)(2) SC ST Act before this Hon’ble Court being Cri.

    A. No. 1046/2018 seeking bail. The Court was pleased

    to dismiss the third appeal for bail . The Copy of order


    dated 07.02.2018 of this Hon’ble Court is annexed as

    Annexure A/5.

    8. That the Appellant/Petitioner filed 4 th appeal u/s


    14(A)(2) SC ST Act before this Hon’ble Court being Cri.
    A. No. 183/2019 seeking bail. The said order was
    dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.02.2019
    by this Hon’ble Court. The Order dated 06.02.2019 is
    annexed as Annexure A/6.

    GROUNDS:

    That, Therefore, the applicant inter alia is filing


    present appeal/bail application before this Hon’ble
    Court on following amongst other available grounds:

    A. Because it has been ignored that the


    Appellant/Petitioner/appellant has nowhere named in
    the FIR by the complainant and charge sheet and the
    statements of complainants and witnesses fail to
    disclose commission of any cognizable offence.

    B. BECAUSE the Appellant/Petitioner/appellant is having


    no acquaintance with the accused persons before the
    committal of offence. Hence no prior meeting of mind
    can take place between the accused persons and
    Appellant/Petitioner. Further, the CDR analysis shows
    that on the date of alleged incident o nly accused
    Kuldeep and accused Govind were in contact with each
    other and they made total six calls on that day to each
    other. Hence the CDR also nowhere shows that the
    Appellant/Petitioner was in contact with the other
    accused persons or had prior meeti ng of minds.

    C. BECAUSE the appellant/Appellant/Petitioner has been


    languishing in the jail for more than 3 years. The
    Appellant/Petitioner has been lodged in jail only on the
    pretext that the accused persons alongwith one of the
    accused Kuldeep a relative of Appellant/Petitioner
    reached his house and asked for shelter. Further the
    Appellant/Petitioner on the request of Kuldeep i.e. the
    Appellant/Petitioner’s relative bonafidely and without
    knowing the intentions of the accused persons and in
    order to oblige his relative gave a room to Kuldeep and
    his friends. Further, the accused persons in order to
    avoid arrest hided their mobile phones beneath an
    almira in Appellant/Petitioner’s house and of which the
    Appellant/Petitioner had no knowledge.

    D. BECAUSE a bare reading of the charge sheet makes it


    very clear that the Appellant/Petitioner was not aware
    about the malafide of the accused persons and had no
    clue or knowledge of the mobile phones in his house and
    thus it is clear that the Appellant/Petitioner had no role
    to play in the commission of crime.

    E. BECAUSE in the charge sheet no conscious role has


    been assigned rather a fictional role has been assigned
    to the appellant/Appellant/Petitioner. Thus the liberty
    of the Appellant/Petitioner should not be curtailed a nd
    therefore Appellant/Petitioner should be instantly
    released on bail.

    F. BECAUSE neither active role has been assigned to the


    Appellant/Petitioner by the prosecution nor there are
    any allegations against the Appellant/Petitioner of
    causing any injury to injured and deceased as well.
    Thus the Appellant/Petitioner has no active
    participation in the commission of offence and thus
    deserves to be released on bail and it is a trite law that
    an act without the essential elements of mens rea and
    actus rea will not in any circumstance constitute a
    crime.

    G. BECAUSE the Appellant/Petitioner’s father is medically


    unfit and needs constant monitoring and care of his
    family. After having suffered one heart attack and a
    paralysis attack recently, keeping the
    Appellant/Petitioner in jail while the trial is pending is
    not only inhumane it also serves no purpose apart from
    presupposing the guilt of the Appellant/Petitioner.

    H. BECAUSE it has been repeatedly held by Supreme Court


    in various pronouncements that freedom of an
    individual is of utmost importance and that cannot be
    allowed to be curtailed for indefinite period. In the
    present case also, the guilt of the Appellant/Petitioner
    is yet to be proved by the investigating agency by
    leading cogent and convincing evidence and thus there
    is no reason to let the Appellant/Petitioner incarcerate
    in jail for indefinite period.

    I. BECAUSE the appellant/Appellant/Petitioner has been


    residing with his family members in Ujjain since his
    birth and as such, there is no likelihood of him fleeing
    from justice. Considering the said fact, coupled with the
    fact that there are total 35 witnesses out of which
    material witnesses have been examined and it will take
    considerable time to complete the examination of the
    witnesses and also of the fact that the
    Appellant/Petitioner is in custody since 16.11.2016,
    the Appellant/Petitioner ought to be released on Bail.

    J. BECAUSE the Appellant/Petitioner is a young man of


    age 31 years and is the only bread earner in the family.
    Thus, the family of the Appellant/Petitioner is on the
    verge of starving due to non grant of bail by the Hon’ble
    High Court.

    K. The balance of convenience lies in favour of t he

    Appellant/Petitioner, qua who, admittedly the

    investigation has been completed and there is no need

    for his custodial interrogation.

    PRAYER:

    In view of the above it is most respectfully prayed that this

    Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

    a. Kindly allow the appeal/bail application and


    release the appeal on bail;
    b. Pass such other order or further orders as this Hon’ble

    Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the

    case.

    Submitted by,

    AMOL PUJARI & RITUPARN UNIYAL


    Counsels for the Appellant/Petitioner

    Indore
    Dated: .12.2019

    You might also like