0% found this document useful (0 votes)
67 views12 pages

Applications for Bail and Release Orders

Uploaded by

advshubhamsh
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
67 views12 pages

Applications for Bail and Release Orders

Uploaded by

advshubhamsh
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITRI, LD.

ASJ, KKD COURTS,


DELHI
IN RE:
STATE VERSUS JAAN MOHD.
FIR NO.995/2014
U/S 394/397/34 IPC
PS: KHAJURI KHAS
DOD:09.06.2023

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT/SURETY


EEDUL HASAN S/O MEHNDI HASAN FOR RELEASE OF
THE ORIGINAL REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF
VEHICLE BEARING [Link]-5S-CK-6308

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:


1. That the applicant namely Eedul Hasan had stood surety for
the accused Jaan Mohd. in the above noted case, while this
Hon’ble Court was pleased to acquit the accused vide order
dated 09.06.2023 and ordered to furnish surety bond U/s
437-A Cr.P.C. The original RC of the applicant of his
vehicle bearing [Link]-5S-CK-6308 was impounded by the
Hon’ble Court, after issuance of Robkar.

2. That as the time period of 6 months has already been passed


after furnishing the aforesaid surety bond U/s 437-A Cr.P.C.,
the applicant is before this Hon’ble Court with the request
for releasing of his original Registration Certificate.
P R A Y E R :-

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the


original Registration Certificate of vehicle bearing No. DL-
5S-CK-6308, may kindly be released to the applicant, in the
interest of justice.

Delhi
Dated: Applicant
Through

SANJIV KUMAR RATHI


Advocate
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA, LD. ASJ, KKD
COURTS, DELHI
IN RE:
STATE VERSUS DEEPAK ETC.
FIR NO.301/2017
U/S 397/394/34 IPC
PS: SEELAMPUR
NDOH: 24.04.2024

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT/ACCUSED


SALMAN FOR CALLING STATUS REPORT FROM THE
JAIL SUPERINTENDENT, MANDOLI JAIL, DELHI

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the above noted case is pending before this Hon’ble


Court and is now fixed for 24.04.2024.

2. That the applicant/accused Salman was granted bail by this


Hon’ble Court and accordingly, the applicant furnished his
bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- on
11.03.2024 and was accepted by this Hon’ble Court on
14.03.2024.

3. That despite acceptance of the bail bond, the accused


/applicant has not been released by the Jail Authority till date
and hence the present application.
P R A Y E R :-

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Jail


Superintendent may kindly be directed to furnish status
report with respect of non release of the applicant/accused
Salman from Mandoli Jail, Delhi, in the interest of justice.

Delhi
Dated: Applicant
Through

SANJIV KUMAR RATHI


Advocate
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUKHJEET SINGH, LD. M.M.,
KKD COURTS, DELHI
IN RE:
STATE VERSUS GUDDU @ FARMAN

FIR NO.351/2023
U/S 25/54/59 ARMS ACT
PS: KHAJURI KHAS
NDOH: 15.05.2024

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT/ACCUSED


GUDDU @ FARMAN REQUESTING THIS HON’BLE
COURT TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER TO
RELEASE THE APPLICANT ON PERSONAL BOND

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the above noted case is pending before this Hon’ble


Court and is now fixed for 15.05.2024.

2. That the applicant/accused Salman was granted bail by this


Hon’ble Court vide order dated 11.08.2023, on furnishing
bail bond as well as personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-
with one surety of the like amount.

3. That the applicant/accused is a poor person and is having


nobody to take care of him. Therefore, the applicant/accused
could not arrange a surety for his release and further, is
unable to arrange the surety till date, hence this application.
4. That the applicant/accused is in custody in the present case
since long and despite being granted bail by this Hon’ble
Court, is inside the jail on account of non arrangement of
surety.

P R A Y E R :-

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that


appropriate orders may kindly be passed for release of the
applicant/accused Guddu @ Farman on personal bond, in the
interest of justice.

Delhi
Dated: Applicant
Through

SANJIV KUMAR RATHI


Advocate
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUKHJEET SINGH, LD. M.M.,
KKD COURTS, DELHI
IN RE:
STATE VERSUS GUDDU @ FARMAN

FIR NO.351/2023
U/S 25/54/59 ARMS ACT
PS: KHAJURI KHAS
NDOH: 15.05.2024

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT/ACCUSED


GUDDU @ FARMAN FOR CALLING STATUS REPORT
FROM THE JAIL SUPERINTENDENT, MANDOLI JAIL,
DELHI, WITH RESPECT TO THE CASES PENDING
AGAINST HIM

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the above noted case is pending before this Hon’ble


Court and is now fixed for 15.05.2024.

2. That the applicant/accused Salman was granted bail by this


Hon’ble Court in the present case vide order dated
11.08.2023.

3. That the applicant/accused is a poor person and is having


nobody to take care of him. Therefore, the applicant/accused
could not arrange a surety for his release and further, is
unable to arrange the surety till date.
4. That for the purpose of moving bail in any other case, if any
pending against the accused Guddu @ Farman, the applicant
is moving the present application seeking directions to the
Jail Superintendent, Mandoli Jail, to furnish the status
regarding the cases pending against the applicant/accused.

P R A Y E R :-

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Jail


Superintendent may kindly be directed to furnish status
report / list of cases, pending against the applicant/accused
Guddu @ Farman, if any, apart from the present case, in the
interest of justice.

Delhi
Dated: Applicant
Through

SANJIV KUMAR RATHI


Advocate
IN THE COURT OF SH. ALOK SHUKLA, LD. ASJ, KKD
COURTS, DELHI
IN RE:
STATE VERSUS MOHSIN ETC.

FIR NO.78/2019
U/S 392/397/411/34 IPC
PS: P.I.A
DOD: 09.08.2023

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT / SURETY


SHAHNAZ W/O ISHAQ R/O T HUTS -105, CHANDER
PURI, DHARAMPURA, GANDHI NAGAR, DELHI-110031,
SEEKING DIRECTIONS TO THE BANK OFFICIALS OF
PUNJAB NATIONAL BRANCH AT SECTOR-10, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI, FOR RELEASING THE FDR OF RS.30,000/-
TO THE APPLICANT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the above noted case has been decided by this Hon’ble
Court vide order dated 09.08.2023, whereby the Hon’ble
Court has acquitted the accused persons.

2. That the applicant Shahnaz had stood surety for the accused
Firoz in the present matter and had furnished her FDR of
Rs.30,000/- towards the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court.

3. That now the statutory period of 6 months have already been


passed and the surety stands discharged. The original copy
of the FDR is with the applicant, but the bank officials are
not ready to release the amount to the applicant until it is
directed or ordered by this Hon’ble Court. Hence, this
application.

P R A Y E R :-

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that an


appropriate order with respect to acquittal of the accused
persons and discharge of surety may kindly be passed and
the bank officials of Punjab National Bank, Sector-10,
Dwarka, New Delhi, may kindly be directed to release the
FDR to the applicant, in the interest of justice.

Delhi
Dated: Applicant
Through

SANJIV KUMAR RATHI


Advocate
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUKHJEET SINGH, LD. M.M.,
KKD COURTS, DELHI
IN RE:
STATE VERSUS SHAHNAWAZ
S/o Sh. Aftab
R/o [Link].120, B Block,
Gali No.3, Shri Ram
Colony, Rajiv Nagar, Delhi

FIR No.
U/S 379/411/34 IPC
PS: SHASTRI PARK
IN JC-PC: 12.03.2024
APPLICATION U/S 437 Cr.P.C. ON BEHALF OF
APPLICANT / ACCUSED SHAHNAWAZ FOR
GRANT OF REGULAR BAIL

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the applicant/accused is the resident of the above


address and is peace loving and law abiding citizen of India.

2. That the applicant/accused has been falsely implicated in the


above case FIR, while he has nothing to do with commission
of any alleged offence.

3. That the applicant/accused is the victim of police atrocities


and despite the police remand of the applicant/accused,
nothing has been recovered from the possession of the
applicant/accused.
4. That the applicant is the resident of the above address and
there is no chance of his absconding or tampering with
evidence.

5. That there is nothing incriminating on record against the


applicant/accused. He is totally innocent.

6. That the applicant/accused is in JC/PC since 12.03.2024 and


is no more required for any further custody.

7. That the applicant /accused is ready to furnish reliable surety


to the entire satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court.

8. That no fruitful result would be served by keeping the


applicant/accused behind the bars.

9. That the applicant/accused is ready to abide by all terms and


conditions, so imposed by this Hon’ble Court while
releasing the applicant on bail.

PRAYER:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the


applicant/accused may kindly be released on regular bail, in
the interest of justice.

Delhi
Dated: Applicant/Accused In JC

Through
SANJIV KUMAR RATHI
Advocate

Common questions

Powered by AI

To ensure release from custody when bail is delayed due to administrative reasons, the applicant can petition the court to issue directions to the jail authorities to expedite the process. This might involve the submission of an application seeking a status report from the jail superintendent or highlighting discrepancies in processing the bail documentation, thereby prompting court intervention to address the issue promptly .

Post-acquittal, the court typically discharges the surety and orders the release of financial securities such as an FDR after the statutory retention period, which in the case provided is six months. The court issues specific directives to banks or relevant authorities to release the funds once it confirms the conclusion of all necessary proceedings and ensures the accused's court compliance .

A personal bond might be used as an alternative to a surety bond when the accused is unable to arrange a surety due to financial constraints or lack of available support, and they have been granted bail by the court. In such cases, the accused may request the court to allow their release on a personal bond, which does not require a third-party guarantee, but rather the promise of the accused to comply with conditions of bail .

When claiming false implication, an accused can argue for bail by highlighting the lack of concrete evidence against them, pointing out any failure of law enforcement to recover incriminating materials, and emphasizing their cooperation with authorities. They can further argue that there is no risk of their absconding due to established ties in the community and assure the court of their willingness to comply with bail conditions .

A court may need to direct a bank to release a financial deposit like an FDR when it has been submitted as surety in a legal proceeding. Upon conclusion of the case and after meeting all statutory requirements, like the acquittal of the accused, the court ensures that the financial instruments are returned to the applicant. The court's role is to provide a legal order to facilitate the release, thereby ensuring that procedural adherence is maintained by financial institutions .

An applicant may request the release of an original registration certificate of a vehicle when they have served as a surety in a court case, and the statutory period has passed after the acquittal of the accused, which in this case is six months. The release is requested because the need for the bond ensures that the surety is discharged, allowing the surety to regain possession of their property, in this case, the vehicle registration certificate .

An accused person can argue against their detention being productive by asserting that continued imprisonment serves no investigatory purpose, as no new evidence or leads are likely to arise from their detainment. They might also demonstrate their full cooperation during previous interrogations, cite lack of gainful or incriminating evidence against them, and mention their readiness to abide by imposed bail conditions which should reassure the court of their compliance pending trial outcomes .

Filing an application for a status report concerning pending cases from jail authorities helps the defense determine if any additional legal actions are required, such as applying for bail in other pending matters. It provides clarity on the legal standing of the accused and aids in planning further defense strategies. This application can prevent unnecessary delays and ensure the accused's timely release if no other cases stand against them .

An individual unable to arrange a surety faces challenges such as prolonged detention despite being granted bail, increased difficulty in maintaining social and economic ties, and psychological stress. The court can address these challenges by considering alternatives, like allowing release on personal bond, particularly if the applicant demonstrates financial inability and a lack of risk factors such as flight risk. Courts might also expedite hearings to prevent undue delays in securing the individual's release .

An applicant might remain in custody despite being granted bail if the jail authorities fail to process the release after the acceptance of the bail bond. The accused can file an application requesting the court to direct the jail superintendent to furnish a status report explaining the delay. This legal action helps in ensuring compliance with the court's order and correcting any administrative oversights delaying the release of the accused .

You might also like