BEFORE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD-I,

SEWA KUTIR COMPLEX, KINGSWAY CAMP, DELHI

APPLICATION NO.

In the matter of:-

SACHIN PRATAP SINGH …Applicant

(Through his elder brother
Sushil Pratap Singh)

Versus

STATE (NCT of Delhi) …Respondent

FIR No. 201/2023

U/s 307/201/34
IPC & 25 &
27 of Arms
Act
P.S. Ashok Vihar
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
SEEKING BAIL UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
(CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015 IN FIR NO.
201/2023 REGISTERED AT POLICE STATION ASHOK VIHAR

Most Respectfully showeth:-

1. It is submitted that the present case is pending before the Hon’ble

Juvenile Justice Board for submission of Written Arguments for the
grant of bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015 on 03.04.2023.
2. It is submitted that the Applicant is falsely implicated in the present case
vide FIR No 201/2023 and the Applicant has no connection with the
alleged incident that took place on 16/02/2023.
3. It is submitted that the matter of fact is that the Applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case without any proof/evidence or any
other connection.
4. It is further submitted that as per the Status Reports submitted on
24/02/2023 (in the anticipatory bail application of the Co-accused
Sumit), 01/03/2023 (in the anticipatory bail application for the
Applicant), 01/03/2023 (in surrender cum bail application of the Co-
accused Sumit), 20/03/2023 (in surrender cum bail application of the
Applicant) and 25/03/2023(in the bail application of Co-accused Sumit)
following can be derived (copies attached with the Written Submission):

a. That in all five-status reports, police have not presented any

substantive evidence which shows the involvement of the
applicant in the alleged incident.
b. That even after 1.5 months of the incident, there is no
progress shown in the police investigation which can
connect the applicant directly or indirectly to the alleged
incident.

c. That except for the testimonies of injured persons (who were

under influence of alcohol at the time of the incident as well
as after the incident for a considerable time period as
mentioned in the FIR), there are no other pieces of evidence
to support police theory regarding this case.

d. That the important fact of injured persons being under

influence of alcohol which is mentioned in FIR is
conveniently and deliberately omitted in all the five status
reports, which shows the prosecution’s prejudice against the
applicant in the current case.

e. That the prosecution’s self-created theory of two weapons

i.e., knives is still not backed by any substantive proof, and
even after taking Applicant in Custody, the Prosecution has
no information about another weapon (Knife).

f. That the Prosecution has placed no material facts on record

before the Hon’ble Court by way of 4 Status Reports and the
F.I.R. to prove that the alleged incident was committed by
the Applicant in the persuasion of common intention with
other Co-Accused.
g. That the Prosecution has placed no material facts on record
before the Hon’ble Court to show that the Applicant was
involved in tempering or destruction of pieces of evidence
that are related to this case.

h. That the TIP requested by the Prosecution is non-essential at

this stage of the case as the news of the alleged incident was
published in the newspapers and a clipping of a newspaper
article is attached with the Written Submission. Also as per
the FIR injured persons were under so much influence of
alcohol that they were not in a position to give a statement to
the Police about the alleged incident and hence they were not
in a position to identify the applicant. So, the process of
doing TIP as per the above facts is redundant and
unnecessary.
i. That as per the testimony of injured persons, the alleged
incident happened at Double Sochalaya whereas as per the
information received through PCR caller as mentioned in
FIR and status report incident happened near Parwati
Chowk, WPIA, Delhi. Considering both statements, we can
conclude that there is no correlation between the findings of
the prosecution and the testimony of victims and hence this
fact can be said to be doubtful and unreliable. Also, the place
of the occurrence of the alleged incident is disputed and the
prosecution has been negligent to ascertain this germane
fact.
j. That there is a 1-hour time gap between the time of the
alleged incident i.e., 10:30 PM as narrated by the injured
persons in their statements given to police, and reporting of
the alleged incident by the PCR caller i.e., 11:30 PM.
Regarding this fact, the Prosecution to date through its 4
Status report has not been able to set a timeline of what
happened in that 1 hour. Also, Prosecution has failed to find
a single independent witness to testify about the occurrences
of the alleged incident and substantiate the Prosecution’s
theory about the alleged incident.

k. That in all the Status Reports, the injured person’s combined

statement regarding the facts of the incident has been given
without any discrepancies or variation in their individual
narration, which appears unnatural, modified, and dictated.
Hence, it creates reasonable doubt in the genuineness of the
combined statements given by them.

l. That as per the statements of the injured person which are

mentioned in all the Status Reports, the explanation about
their efforts in protecting themselves and seeking help after
the altercation (10:30 pm to 11:30 pm) is missing, which
indicates that the injured persons are misleading the
investigation.

m. That, as per the statements of the injured persons, they were

attacked with a single knife but as per the theory of the
Prosecution there were two knives involved, one has been
already recovered from Co-Accused Lucky@Surjeet and the
 other co-accused are hiding a second knife. Hence from the
above facts it can be directly said that the Prosecution is
falsely creating evidence in order to falsely implicate the
Applicant and oppose his bail. Also, this concern is
confirmed by the last Status Report submitted on
20.03.2023, where they omitted to mention the where about
of the second knife which was included in all the previous 3
Status Reports (submitted on 24.032023 and 01.03.2023
respectively), and the evidence, they got from the Applicant
to recover it for which he was initially wanted and later
arrested. Hence, this shows the Prosecution’s deliberate
attempt to frame the Applicant on the wrong charges based
up on false theory.

n. That, even in the statement given by the Co-accused

Lucky@Surjeet and Shivam to the Police, there is no
mention of the fact that two knives were used in the alleged
incident and also none of the Co-accused has given any
information about the second imaginary knife. Even in
photographs taken by Co-Accused Lucky@Surjeet in his
mobile (which is under the custody of the Police), there is
only one blood-stained knife.

5. It is submitted that all the Status reports present a certain sense of

urgency on the side of the Prosecution for implicating the Applicant
without going on the merits of the facts of the incident. The
Investigation appears rushed and suffers from Confirmation Bias, where
the Applicant is presumed as accused, and accordingly, facts of the
 incident are being set without the backing of any genuine pieces of
evidence.
6. It is submitted that there was a 6-hour unexplained delay in filing the
F.I.R. from the time of the reporting of the incident (11:30 PM) and
registering of the FIR (05:40 AM) which shows a lackadaisical approach
as well as attitude from the side of the Police towards the case and lack
of commitment towards the finding of pieces of evidence essential for
the case.
7. It is further submitted that as per the F.I.R., injured persons were under
so much influence of alcohol at the time of the incident they were not in
the condition to give a statement to the Police and hence statements
given by them on the next day are not admissible in the course of this
case.
8. It is submitted that as mentioned in the case of Kamal Kishore v. State
(Delhi Administration), [(1972) 2 Crimes 169 (Del)], the statement of
the accused leading to the discovery or the informatory statement
amounting to the confession of the accused cannot be used against the
co-accused. Hence in the present case, the statements given by the co-
accused against the Applicant cannot be used to frame the Applicant in
the alleged incident.
9. It is submitted that the in the regard to the applicability of Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Girija Shankar vs State Of U.P [Appeal (crl.) 1034 of 1997] has said,
“Section 34 has been enacted on the principle of joint liability in the
doing of a criminal act. The Section is only a rule of evidence and does
not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the Section is
the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an
offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated
by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done
 in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in
committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom
available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the
circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the
proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common
intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct
or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of mind of all the
accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with
the aid of Section 34, be it pre-arranged or on the spur of moment; but
it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true
concept of Section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act
jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it
individually by himself. As observed in Ashok Kumar v.State of Punjab
(AIR 1977 SC 109), the existence of a common intention amongst the
participants in a crime is the essential element for application of this
Section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged
with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically
similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been
actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the
provision.” As per the above explanation, it can be said that the charge
under Section 34 is not attracted in the present case as the Prosecution
has failed to establish from the circumstances that there was any pre-
planning or meeting of mind regarding the alleged incident and also
nothing can be inferred from the statements given by the accused to
police regarding common intention.
10. It is further submitted that in order to attract provisions of Section 307 of
IPC, 1860, there is a need to observe that the act, irrespective of its
result, was done with the intention or knowledge to cause death and
under circumstances mentioned in the section. So, when we read the
 presented facts at our disposal via the F.I.R. and various Status Reports,
we can’t find any intention from the side of the Applicant to involve in
this alleged incident nor do we see any kind of knowledge behind the
alleged act as per the theory of the Prosecution as according to prima
facie facts incident appear more to be an act done in the spur of the
moment instead of previous pre-planning, where again the involvement
of the applicant still needs to be established.
11. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 201 of IPC, 1860 which is
titled “Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false
information to screen offender.” are not attracted as the basis of this
charge is based on the theory of two knives, which is a disputed fact as
the existence of imaginary second knife is still need to be proved by the
Prosecution. Also, there is no material fact on record to substantiate the
theory of two knives by the Prosecution.

12. It is submitted that the Applicant has a long future ahead as he has just
attained his age of 16 years and he is a juvenile which is why his
interests need to be protected by this Hon’ble Board in the interest of
justice.
13. It is submitted that the Applicant’s father died approx. 10 years ago,
since then the family is struggling to make a living. Due to this reason,
the Applicant remains illiterate and started taking skill development
training at an early stage to support the family.
14. It is further submitted that the Applicant is already a victim of
circumstances with harsh childhood and hence for the bright future of
the Applicant, it is very important that the Applicant should not be
subjected to further harassment.
15. It is submitted that the Applicant is a juvenile with limited resources so
there is no possibility of tempering of pieces of evidence by him and also
 there is no danger to any witness or any other person related to this case
from the Applicant’s side.
16. It is submitted that the Applicant if granted bail is ready to reside under
the protection of his mother at some other place and not in the vicinity or
area where the alleged incident has taken place for a conducive
environment and for proper growth of child so that he is not exposed to
moral, physical or psychological danger. The Applicant’s mother will
undertake the responsibility of her son that he will not enter the
jurisdiction of Ashok Vihar Police station till the conclusion of the trial.
The Applicant’s mother will give an affidavit in which she will apprise
the board about the address where she will reside along with the
applicant. The Applicant’s mother undertakes that applicant will remain
present before JJB for all the hearings.

PRAYER

In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most

respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

(i) Grant regular bail to the Applicant/ Accused in FIR

No.201/2023, PS Ashok Vihar under Section 307/34/201

IPC & 25/27 Arms Act on such terms and condition as it

may deem fit to this Hon’ble Court;

(ii) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

present case.
 Applicant

(Through his elder brother

Sushil Pratap Singh)

New Delhi

Dated: Through

ASHU BIDHURI
Advocate
Chamber No. 248, Western Wing,

Tis Hazari Court Complex, NewDelhi-110054