IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE SESSIONS JUDGE
AT [DISTRICT/CITY NAME]
Bail Application No. ___ of 2025
In the matter of:
Soni,
S/o [Father’s Name], aged about [__] years,
R/o [Full Address],
… Applicant/Accused
VERSUS
State of [Name of State],
(Through [Name of Police Station]),
… Respondent
APPLICATION UNDER § 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
1973, READ WITH THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 AND THE
BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023, SEEKING REGULAR BAIL
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The Applicant, Soni, is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. [] dated []
registered at [Police Station], District [_____], for an alleged offense punishable under §
103 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The Applicant submits that the allegations in the FIR are false, baseless, and do not fulfill
the essential ingredients of murder as defined under § 103 BNS, which requires proof of
intention and knowledge causing death. The present case, at most, falls within the ambit
of § 101 BNS (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
3. The Applicant further submits that the investigation lacks direct or credible circumstantial
evidence. Under § 4 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (definition of “evidence”)
and § 6 BSA (relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction), no admissible
material links the Applicant to the alleged act.
4. The alleged recovery and statements relied upon by the prosecution are inadmissible
under § 108 BSA, as they were procured involuntarily and without compliance with
procedural safeguards.
5. The Applicant has no criminal antecedents and is a permanent resident of [City/State].
The Applicant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and trial, and not to tamper
with evidence or influence witnesses.
6. The investigation is substantially complete, and further custodial interrogation of the
Applicant is unnecessary. Continued incarceration serves no purpose and violates the
principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. See State of Rajasthan v. Balchand
alias Baliay, (1977) 4 S.C.C. 308 (India).
7. The Applicant submits that personal liberty is protected under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, and that pre-trial detention in the absence of compelling reasons is
contrary to settled constitutional and jurisprudential principles. See Sanjay Chandra v.
CBI, (2012) 1 S.C.C. 40 (India).
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Applicant most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to:
1. Grant regular bail to the Applicant, Soni, in connection with FIR No. [] dated []
registered at [Police Station, District], for the alleged offense under § 103 Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and
2. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice.
Respectfully submitted,
Place: [City]
Date: [DD/MM/YYYY]
Counsel for the Applicant
(Signature)
[Name of Advocate]
Advocate, [Bar Council Enrollment No.]
[Contact: Phone / Email]
INTERN NAME: DOLLY GUPTA, BA LLB, IAMR LAW COLLEGE, CHAUDHARY
CHARAN SINGH UNIVERSITY