Legal Drafting: Delhi HC Asks Lawyers To Confine To Facts In Bail Pleas, Skip Adding Judgment Extracts

Noting that lawyers add elaborative judgment extracts while drafting bail pleas, the Delhi High Court has requested counsels to adhere to "basic principles of pleading" and mention only facts, legal provisions and grounds on which bail is sought.

Justice Talwant Singh observed that there is no need for the drafting counsels to attach copies of the judgements along with pleadings as it results in making them too bulky.

Stating that the lawyers are at liberty to cite judgements at the time of arguments, the Judge added:

"These citations may be handed over to the Court Master at the time of arguments or they may be filed online just before the petitions are listed for final arguments. I earnestly hope that the learned drafting counsels will bear this in mind in future."

The Court made the observations while granting anticipatory bail to two men, Aakash Choudhary and Gaurav Singh in an FIR registered under Section 308, 323, 341 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The accused argued that the FIR was lodged under the influence of a local municipal councillor's husband. It was submitted that the FIR against them was a counter blast to the FIR filed by them.

As per prosecution's status report, it was stated that a PCR call was received pursuant to a quarrel between the parties on July 8 informing that the injured complainant was admitted in the hospital.

The complainant had referred to an earlier incident, when the work related to construction of a road at the instance of his wife was opposed by the petitioners.

It was alleged that the complainant was beaten by the petitioners with sticks and iron rods, as a a result of which he fell unconscious and the accused persons left the spot thinking that he was dead.

During investigation, the IO visited the place of incident and preserved the video footage. As per the IO, the video footage revealed that while a third person had hit the complainant, the petitioners were actively involved in the incident.

On watching the footage, the Court was of the view that that a spade was lifted by complainant at the first instance and that he had attacked the accused persons.

"I am of the view that the only reliable piece of evidence, which gives a clear picture of the incident is the CCTV footage of the entire incident, which was captured in a CCTV installed near the ground. Both the parties have exaggerated the claims and have stated facts in their respective FIRs, which are not supported by the CCTV footage," the Court said.

Observing that the altercation started on a very minor issue and later escalated to a "free for all fight", the Court said that the incident resulted in lodging of cross FIRs by both the groups on basis of the facts which were best suited to them, without realising that the entire incident was captured in a CCTV camera.

"Here, the investigating agency is required to investigate the entire incident on the basis of scientific evidence, without relying upon exaggerated allegations made in both the FIRs and to conclude the investigation and take further action. This is the reason that the present investigation is ordered to be done directly under the supervision of the area DCP," the Court ordered.

The bail pleas were disposed of accordingly.

Title: AAKASH CHOUDHARY v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR and another connected matter

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 892

Click Here To Read Order