1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS,

ULLAL NAGAR.
In the Matter of :
1. Dr. Swaroop Sinha,

Cardiologist,Medical director,
KAUL HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE,
Ullal Nagar,Malnad.
2. Mrs. Shakeela Swaroop Sinha,
w/o.Dr. Swaroop Sinha,
Ullal Nagar,
Malnad.

..Petitioner
Versus

State of Malnad
rep by Superintendent of Police,
Ullal Nagar.

Respondent

FIR NO: 007/2016

P.S:

ULLAL NAGAR POLICE STATION.

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINALPROCEDURE,1973

FOR GRANT OF BAIL
Most Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the present application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
is being filed by the Petitioners for seeking grant of bail in FIR No.007/2016 registered at
Ullal Nagar Police Station.

2. The present petition is being moved as the Petitioners has been arrested on 15/01/2016 in
connection with the said FIR. The petitioners are now in judicial custody.
3. That the Petitioners are innocent and are being falsely implicated in the above said case
as they have nothing to do with the offence mentioned in the FIR .
4. That the Petitioners are law abiding citizens of India. The first petitioner is an well
known cardiologist and is working as Medical Director in the Kaul Hospital and
Research Centre owned by the deceased Dr. Smitha Kaul at the heart of the city of Ullal
Nagar.
5. That the Petitioners are responsible persons and living at the above mentioned address.
6. That the first petitioner is a well known cardiologist and his opinion has a high degree of
acceptance throughout the city of Ullal Nagar. The deceased Dr. Smitha Kaul and the first
petitioner Dr. Swaroop Sinha had a close friendship from college days. The first
petitioner as well as the deceased Dr. Smithas close friendly relationship was well known
by the persons at the hospital. The first petitioner Dr. Swaroop Sinha is married to the
second petitioner Mrs. Shakeela, and they have a small son. Both the petitioner led a
happy life. Though the second petitioner Mrs. Shakeela had doubts in the relationship of
her husband and the deceased , it did not affect the happiness in the family as mentioned
in the facts of the case which shows the innocence of the second petitioner and she is not
having any kind of quarrels with her husband (i.e) the first petitioner Dr. Swaroop Sinha.
On 15/01/2016, Dr. Smitha Kaul did not attend the hospital. After being informed by the
Hospital superintendent, the first petitioner Dr. Swaroop Sinha himself deputed a staff
and as soon as the staff reported to him that the door was locked and there was no
response , the first petitioner Dr. Swaroop Sinha reported the police about the issue. If the
petitioner is the murderer he would have not informed about such issue to the police
himself . Being such a persons of responsibility and innocence and a well known
cardiologist in the city , both the petitioner could not be involved such a brutel murder.
7. That the Petitioner is innocent and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him
under custody and this is a fit case for grant of bail. In the investigation conducted by the
police , they found some cash, chequebook, and other valuable documents were stolen by

breaking open the almirah from the residence. The petitioner is a person having a good
reputation and he being a well known cardiologist and the director of the hospital, there is
no need of money. The theft of cash and other valuable bank documents clearly shows
that the murder could have been commited for cash. On further investigation, the police
recovered a revolver covered in a newspaper near the entrance of the petitioners house.
The ballistic experts found out that the deceased Dr. Smitha Kaul was killed by the bullet
that was fired from the revolver licensed to Dr. Smitha Kaul, which was recovered near
the house of the petitioner. On a common parlance no murderer would throw away the
weapon which he used for commission of offence would near his place of residence . He
would have destroyed the evidence . But in this case the petitioner did not do so. This
throws light on the fact that both the petitioner would not have commited the murder. A
person knowing the reputation of the first petitioner Dr. Swaroop Sinha, have
intentionally commited this crime and looted the wealth of the deceased which inturn
ruptured the reputation of the petitioners.
8.

That the Petitioners undertakes to abide by the conditions that this Honorable Court may
impose at the time of granting bail to both the Petitioners and further undertakes to face
the trial on every date of hearing and further undertakes that he will not abscond or
destroy any piece of evidence and abide by the conditions laid down by the law.

9. That the Petitioners has not filed any other similar petition before this or any other
Honorable Court for grant of bail in case of the present FIR.

PRAYER:
In view of the above stated facts and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this
Honorable Court may be pleased to
a.

Grant bail to the Petitioners in connection with FIR No.007/2016 registered under
section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 , for the offence of murder at Police Station
of Ullal Nagar.

b.

Pass any other such order as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice.