Mr. Jeeshan, this Court cancelled your bail on 27 January 2025. You surrendered only on 10 March 2025 — 42 days later. Why should you be granted bail again?

My Lord, I filed a Review Petition against this Court's order. I was under the bona fide belief that the filing of the Review Petition would stay the operation of the order. My counsel advised me accordingly. Once I realised that the Review Petition does not operate as a stay, I surrendered immediately. I was not absconding with any mala fide intention. I have always cooperated with the investigation. I have not threatened any witness. My surrender within 12 days of the Section 82 proceedings is prompt. The delay should not be held against me.

The CCTV footage shows you brandishing a pistol and gunshots are heard. How do you explain that?

My Lord, the CCTV footage does not show me firing at anyone. I retrieved a pistol from my house, but I did not fire it. The sound of gunshots could have come from other persons. The prosecution has not produced any forensic evidence linking me to the gunshots. Moreover, the victims suffered no firearm injuries. If I had fired with intent to kill, some injury would have been caused. The absence of injuries casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case. At the bail stage, the court must consider whether there is a prima facie case. Here, the case is weak.

Co-accused Aurangzeb was granted bail, but his role was assault with a knife. Your role is firing a pistol — that is materially different. Why should parity apply?

My Lord, the Appellant withdrew his challenge to the bail of Aurangzeb. He cannot now argue that Aurangzeb should not have been granted bail. Parity is a principle of fairness. If one co-accused is granted bail, others similarly situated should not be treated differently. The fact that I had a pistol and Aurangzeb had a knife does not make our roles materially different. We were both armed and both assaulted the victims. The pistol was recovered, but it was never proved that I fired it. The trial court will evaluate this evidence. At the bail stage, the Court should not make fine distinctions.

You have been in custody for 7.5 months. That is not excessive for a Section 307 IPC charge. Why should you be released?

My Lord, I have been in custody since my surrender in March 2025. The trial is at its commencement stage. Twelve witnesses are yet to be examined. The trial will take years. Keeping me in custody for years without trial violates my fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. There is no evidence that I will abscond or threaten witnesses. I have a fixed place of residence. I am willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. Bail should be granted.

For RespondentCriminal Premium

No Firearm Injuries, Parity with Co-Accused, Bail Properly Granted — (2026) INSC 526

The High Court correctly granted bail considering the absence of firearm injuries, the delay in lodging FIR, the fact that the CCTV footage does not show the accused firing, and the principle of…

Mohseen v. State of Uttar Pradesh — (2026) INSC 526

Core Argument

The High Court correctly granted bail considering the absence of firearm injuries, the delay in lodging FIR, the fact that the CCTV footage does not show the accused firing, and the principle of parity with co-accused Aurangzeb who was granted bail. The accused surrendered promptly and has no criminal antecedents of significance.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in