Scribd
Upload
4 views5 pages

bail argu

The document presents arguments for granting bail to petitioners, emphasizing that the investigation is complete, they are presumed innocent, and have no criminal history. It highlights their family dependency and community ties, asserting they are not flight risks. The document requests regular bail, stating that continued detention serves no purpose and the petitioners will cooperate with the trial.

Uploaded by

gourisankardas
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
4 views5 pages

bail argu

The document presents arguments for granting bail to petitioners, emphasizing that the investigation is complete, they are presumed innocent, and have no criminal history. It highlights their family dependency and community ties, asserting they are not flight risks. The document requests regular bail, stating that continued detention serves no purpose and the petitioners will cooperate with the trial.

Uploaded by

gourisankardas
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
You are on page 1/ 5

Short #Arguments for Bail in BNSS

1. Investigation Complete:

The investigation is complete, and witnesses (LWs-1 to 12) have been examined. Custodial
interrogation is no longer required (Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, 2011).

2. Presumption of Innocence:

Petitioners are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Allegations are politically motivated
due to rivalry in upcoming Sarpanch elections (Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2014).

3. No Criminal History:

Petitioners have no prior criminal record, demonstrating their law-abiding nature.

4. Family Dependency:

Petitioners are breadwinners, supporting aged parents and dependents. Prolonged


detention will cause undue hardship (Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP, 1994).

5. Not Flight Risks:

They are permanent residents with deep community ties, immovable properties, and ready
to provide sureties (State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand, 1977).

6. Right to Bail:
Section 483 of the BNSS and established principles favor bail, as detention is not punitive
(Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, 2011).

Prayer: Grant regular bail as continued detention serves no purpose, and Petitioners will
cooperate with the trial.

#Arguments with Citations and Explanations

1. Investigation Complete:

The investigation is complete, and witnesses (LWs-1 to 12) have been examined. Custodial
interrogation is no longer required.

Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2011): The Supreme Court held that once the investigation is
complete, detention should not be used as a form of punishment prior to trial.

2. Presumption of Innocence:

Petitioners are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Allegations are politically motivated
due to rivalry in upcoming Sarpanch elections.

Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014): The Court emphasized the need to avoid routine
arrests and upheld the principle of presumption of innocence.

3. No Criminal History:

Petitioners have no prior criminal record, demonstrating their law-abiding nature.

Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP (1994): The Court highlighted that arrest should not be made
on a mere allegation of commission of an offence unless justified.
4. Family Dependency:

Petitioners are breadwinners, supporting aged parents and dependents. Prolonged


detention will cause undue hardship.

Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979): The Court recognized the socio-economic
impact of unnecessary detention on families.

5. Not Flight Risks:

They are permanent residents with community ties, immovable properties, and ready to
provide sureties.

State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand (1977): The Court stated that “bail is the rule, jail is the
exception” for individuals who are not flight risks.

6. Right to Bail:

Section 483 of the BNSS and established principles favor bail, as detention is not punitive.

Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2011): The Court reiterated that bail should be granted unless
there are exceptional circumstances for denial.

Prayer: Grant regular bail as continued detention serves no purpose, and Petitioners will
cooperate with the trial.

#Arguments with Citations and Explanations

1. Investigation Complete:
The investigation is complete, and witnesses (LWs-1 to 12) have been examined. Custodial
interrogation is no longer required.

Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2011): The Supreme Court held that once the investigation is
complete, detention should not be used as a form of punishment prior to trial.

2. Presumption of Innocence:

Petitioners are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Allegations are politically motivated
due to rivalry in upcoming Sarpanch elections.

Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014): The Court emphasized the need to avoid routine
arrests and upheld the principle of presumption of innocence.

3. No Criminal History:

Petitioners have no prior criminal record, demonstrating their law-abiding nature.

Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP (1994): The Court highlighted that arrest should not be made
on a mere allegation of commission of an offence unless justified.

4. Family Dependency:

Petitioners are breadwinners, supporting aged parents and dependents. Prolonged


detention will cause undue hardship.

Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979): The Court recognized the socio-economic
impact of unnecessary detention on families.
5. Not Flight Risks:

They are permanent residents with community ties, immovable properties, and ready to
provide sureties.

State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand (1977): The Court stated that “bail is the rule, jail is the
exception” for individuals who are not flight risks.

6. Right to Bail:

Section 483 of the BNSS and established principles favor bail, as detention is not punitive.

Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2011): The Court reiterated that bail should be granted unless
there are exceptional circumstances for denial.

Prayer: Grant regular bail as continued detention serves no purpose, and Petitioners will
cooperate with the trial.

You might also like