An application for bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

DISTRICT: __________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. OF 2009.

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application for bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

A N D

IN THE MATTER OF:

Md. X

Son of Y

Village: Dairer Par

P.S. Monohordi

District: Narsingdi

…. ACCUSED -PETITIONER

(IN JAIL CUSTODY)

-VERSUS-

The State, represented by

The Deputy Commissioner, Narsingdi

…. OPPOSITE PARTY

A N D

IN THE MATTER OF:

Order No. 2 dated 17.03.2009 passed by Mr. Md. Abul Hossain Khan, Session Judge, Narsingdi, in Session Case No. 47/09 corresponding to Monohordi Thana Police Station Case No. 08 dated 12.03.2008 arising out of G.R. Case No. 131/08 under section 302 and 34 of the Penal Code now pending before the Session Court, Narsingdi, rejecting the application for bail.

To

Mr. Justice M. M. Ruhul Amin, the Chief Justice of Bangladesh and his companion Justices of the said Hon’ble Court.

The humble petition of the Accused -petitioner above named most respectfully –

S H E W E T H:-

1. That the accused-petitioner is a Bus driver and he has been driving Bus with reputation for such a long time. The accused-petitioner permanently resides at Dairer Par village in Lebutola Union parishad of Monohardi thana under the district of Narsingdi. The accused-petitioner is a law abiding citizen of the country.

2. That Md. N (the “informant”) filed an Ejhar on 13.03.2008 in the Mohohordi Thana Police station and the officer-in-charge of the said police station recorded the same as Monohordi Thana Police Station Case No. 8 dated 12.03.2008 under section 302 of the Penal Code and directed for its investigation.

3. That the prosecution alleging inter alia that the victim M of 22 years was the student of Chemistry (1st year Honours) in the Narsingdi Government College. On 12.03.08 at about 5 pm he left home for Chalakchar bazar for the purpose of purchasing selu machine parts. At about 8.30 pm while the informant was at his home, 2 unknown boys ran towards the informant’s home and informed that the victim was killed and he was in the Angor’s house. The informant ran towards Angor’s home and saw the victim was laying at the Angor’s yard and he was seriously bleeding. The informant found 3 stabs in the throat and 1 stab in the palm. The eye witness Angor said that he was inside home at about 8 pm. and the victim fell at his yard with shouting and he came out of his home and saw the victim

A Certified copy of the Ejhar and F.I.R. are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-“A”

4. That the accused-petitioner contends, inter alia, that he is not aware of the alleged offence. He had no connection with the alleged offence. At the time of the alleged offence he was at his sister’s home at Madabdi, Narsingdi, about 30 kilo meters away from the alleged place of offence. No body raised any allegation against the petitioner except the accused No. 5, Mustafa who tried to falsely incriminate the petitioner out of his enmity with the petitioner.

5. That upon conclusion of the investigation, the investigation officer submitted the charge sheet being No. 176 dated 25.12.08 under sections 302 and 34 of the Penal Code against the accused-petitioner most illegally and others and the learned Senior Judicial Magistrate, Narsingdi, sent the record to the learned Session Judge Court, Narsingdi for trial. The Charge sheet against the petitioner is not supported by the statements u/s 161.

Certified copies of the charge sheet is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-“B”

6. That on 12.04.08 the Accused-Petitioner was arrested by the police and forwarded him before the learned Senior Judicial Magistrate, Monohordi, Narsingdi and the accused-petitioner was sent to the custody.

7. That on 17.03.09 it was fixed for charge hearing and the learned Session Judge framed the charge against the accused-petitioner with other accused and fixed the next date on 13.05.2009 for deposition of prosecution witnesses.

Certified copies of the relevant order is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-“C”

  1. That on 17.03.09, the accused-petitioner filed a bail application before the Court below for granting him bail and the application was rejected by the learned Session Judge, Narsingdi without assigning any lawful and valid reason. The learned Judge himself surprisingly invented a factual ground to reject the bail application which does not have any basis. It was not mentioned in the J statement u/s 164 that “confessing accused J has implicated this accused with the allegation”. The learned Court below wrongfully rejected the bail application of the accused-petitioner upon assuming a fact which neither stated in confessing statement of J nor statement u/s 161 nor in the charge sheet. Although the F.I.R. and the statements of J u/s 164 does not disclose the Accused-petitioner’s name but the learned Court below wrongfully rejected the bail application of the Accused -petitioner upon assuming a fact.

A certified copy of the rejection order being No. 2 dated 17.03.09 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- “D”

  1. That it is submitted that the accused-petitioner is quite innocent and he has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the instant Criminal Case out of enmity and baseless information.

10. That it is humbly submitted that the F.I.R. neither stated accused-petitioner’s name nor raised any allegation against him. He has been falsely entangled in the instant case at the instance of a vested quarter who are rival and inimical to him for reason unknown to him.

11. That it is humbly stated that the accused-petitioner has been languishing in the jail-custody since he was arrested on 12.04.2008.

12. That it is humbly submitted that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant Case. The Accused-Petitioner is in no way involved with the alleged offence. He was implicated in the case only for harassment. No body witnessed that he took part in the alleged murder.

13. That it is humbly submitted that the F.I.R. does not disclose the petitioner’s name. Even charge sheet does not disclose the alleged offence against the petitioner.

14. That it is humbly the accused-petitioner that the confessing principal accused J and Dental Y (Accused No. 2) did not mention the petitioner’s name in their confessionary statements u/s 164.

15. That it is humbly submitted that the accused No. 6, has already been granted the bail.

16. That the accused-petitioner has his settled occupation and home in his locality and there is chance for him to abscond if he is granted bail.

17. That although the PCR shows that a number of cases filed against the petitioner, but almost all cases mentioned in P.C.R. were filed by the same informant in order to harass the petitioner socially and to dispossess the petitioner and his family from their land property. By the time the petitioner has been discharged from the case No. 07(4)08 under sections 395 & 397. In no case, the petitioner has been convicted.

18. That this is a fit case where the accused-petitioner can be granted bail by your Lordships.

19. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order being No. 2 dated 17.03.09 the humble accused-petitioner begs to move this petition on the following amongst other-

G R O U N D S:

I. For that the impugned order being No. 2 dated 17.03.09 is illegal, unjust, improper and as such the same is liable to be set aside.

II. For that the accused-petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the instant Criminal Case out of enmity and baseless information and as such the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged in bail.

III. For that the F.I.R. neither stated accused-petitioner’s name nor raised any allegation against him. He has been falsely entangled in the instant case at the instance of a vested quarter who are rival and inimical to him for reason unknown to him and as such the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

IV. For that the learned Court below failed to take into consideration that FIR does not disclose accused-petitioner’s name and as such the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

V. For that the no specific allegation is alleged against the accused-petitioner in the charge sheet.

VI. For that the confessing accused Mustafa tried to falsely implicate the petitioner in the alleged offence just out of enmity and as such the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

VII. For that other confessing accused, principal accused, J and Accused No. 2, Dental Y did not mention the petitioner’s name and as such, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

VIII. The accused-petitioner has been apprehended without any material information regarding the accused-petitioner’s involvement with the alleged offence and thus the accused-petitioner has been made the victim of the circumstances and as such the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

IX. For that the accused-petitioner who has been languishing in jail custody for a period of more than 1 (one) year for no reason and as such the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

X. For that the accused-petitioner was at Madhabdi, his sister’s home at the time and date of the alleged offence.

XI. For that the accused-petitioner has been languishing in the jail-custody since he was arrested on 12.04.2008 without any prospect of early disposal of the case.

XII. For that the accused-petitioner has his settled occupation and home in his locality and there is chance for him to abscond if he is granted bail.

XIII. For that the learned Court below wrongfully rejected the bail application of the accused-petitioner upon assuming a fact and as such the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

XIV. For that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is not at all involved with the alleged offence or with any activity linked to the alleged offence whatsoever.

XV. For that the accused-petitioner is a law abiding citizen of Bangladesh. He and hence, there is no chance for him to abscond if he is enlarged on bail. The accused-petitioner is ready to comply with any condition imposed by your Lordships.

Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that your Lordships would graciously be pleased to issue a Rule calling upon the Opposite Party to show cause as to why the accused-petitioner should not be enlarged on bail in Session Case No. 47/09 corresponding to Monohordi Thana Police Station Case No. 08 dated 12.03.2008 arising out of G.R. Case No. 131/08 under section 302 and 34 of the Penal Code now pending before the Session Court, Narsingdi and upon hearing both the parties, perusing the cause shown, if any, make the Rule absolute and pass such other or further order or orders as to your lordships may deem fit and proper.

AND

Pending hearing of the Rule, the accused-petitioner may be enlarged on ad-interim bail in the instant case.

And for this act of kindness the Accused -petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.

A F F I D A V I T

I, ………………………………, son of ………………………., of Village- ………………………….., P.S. ……………………, ……………………….. aged about…………….. years by faith Muslim, by profession ………………………, nationality Bangladeshi by birth, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:-

01. That I am the Tadbirkar of the accused-petitioner and as such I am fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.

02. That the statements made in paragraph Nos. 1 to 18 hereinabove are true to my knowledge and matters of record, which I verily believe to be true and the rests are submission before this Hon’ble Court.

Prepared in my office

___________________________

(……………………………………..) DEPONENT

Advocate

………………….. Dhaka. The deponent is known to me and identified by me.

Solemnly affirmed before me by

the said ___________________ at

the Supreme Court premises, Dhaka

on this the … day of April,

2009 at 11A.M.

(…………………………………….)

Advocate

COMMISSIONER OF AFFIDAVITS

SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION, DHAKA.

NOTICE

DISTRICT: _______________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. OF 2009.

IN THE MATTER OF:

Md. X

…. ACCUSED -PETITIONER

(IN JAIL HAJOT)

-VERSUS-

The State

———–OPPOSITE PARTY

To,

The Attorney General

Government of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh.

Dear Sir,

Please take notice that an application for bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (copy enclosed herewith) will be filed and moved before this Hon’ble Court.

Yours faithfully.

________________

Advocate

For the Accused -petitioner .

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.