1

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

AT SHIMLA

IN THE MATTER OF-

MR. RAHUL CHATURVEDI

APPLICANT/PETITIONER
v.
STATE OF H.P.
RESPONDENT

PETITION INVOKED UNDER ART.226 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

LORDSHIP’S COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT
OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 2

SUBMITTED TO- SUBMITTED BY-

Ms. AYUSHI NEGI Mr. DEVINDER KUMAR

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW ENROLMENT NO.-150730200010

A.P. GOYAL SHIMLA UNIVERSITY BBA- LL.B 10 TH SEMESTER

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO HEADING PAGE NO.

1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. 4

2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5-6

3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7-8

4 STATEMENT OF FACTS 9-10

5 STATEMENT OF ISSUES 11

5.A ISSUE NO. 1

WHETHER THE HUSBAND AND HIS RELATIVES

ARE GREEDY AND THERE IS ANY VIOLATION
OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE
PETITONER ?

5.B ISSUE NO. 2

WHETHER PROVIDING ANTICIPATORY BAIL

TO THE ACCUSED CAN CAUSE LIFE RISK TO
THE RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER IS
ELIGIBLE TO GET ANTICIPATORY BAIL?

5.C ISSUE NO. 3

WHETHER DEMANDING MONEY IS THE ONLY

INTENTION OF GETTING MARRIED?

6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 12

7 WRITTEN SUBMISSION 13-29

8 PRAYER FOR SUBMISSION 30

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Actual terms

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

U/S UNDER SECTION

V. VERSUS

Ed.N EDITION

ORS OTHERS

ANR ANOTHER

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

I.E THAT IS

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

SEC SECTION

HON`BLE HONORABLE

HC HIGH COURT

FIR FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A.TABLE OF CASES

SL.NO. NAME OF CASES AND CITATION

1. Amit Kairon Vs. State of Haryana and another Cr. M. No. 17

29867 of 2019
2. Vinod Chopra and another Vs. State Haryana Cr. L. M. 27
No. M -34686 of 2010

3. Mayank Pathak v. state or govt.(Delhi).AIR 2015 SC 26

SUPP 301.

4. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement(criminal 13

appeal no.1340 of 2019 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) no. 7523
of 2019].

5. Nissar Kunju v state of Kerala (Bail Application no. 23

6524/2018).

6. 29
Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana AIR 1989 SC 378

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 6

B. BOOKS, REPORTS AND DIGEST ,LEGAL SITE

SN.NO. NAME OF THE BOOKS, REPORT AND DIGEST WITH THE NAME OF
THE AUTHOR OR PUBLISHER

1 LAW TELLER , DEC.2019

2 BARE ACT The Indian Penal Code ,UNIVERSAL Law Publishing

3 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SARKAR), 12TH EDITION,

VOL.2 ,2018.

4 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE LAWS, SARKAR & MITRA, EDITION

2013.

5 www. Indian kanoon .com

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 7

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE HON`BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HIMACHAL PRADESH

EXERCISES JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND ADJUDICATE OVER THE MATTER

UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL,PROCEDURE,1973.

UNDER SECTION 438 0F THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHEN ANY

PERSON HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT HE MAY BE ARRESTED ON AN

ACCUSATION OF PLAINTIFF COMMITTED A NON-BAILABLE OFFENCE ,THE

HIGH COURT OR THECOURT OF SESSION MAY, IF IT THINKS FIT, DIRECT THAT

IN THE EVENT OF SUCH ARREST, HE SHALL BE RELEASED ON BAIL AND IN

PASSING THAT ORDER, IT MAY INCLUDE SUCH CONDITIONS HAVING REGARD

TO THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE, AS IT MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE,

ANTICIPATORY BAIL IS GRANTED IN ANTICIPATION IN NON-BAILABLE CASES.

1. When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an

accusation of having committed a non- bailable offence, he may apply

to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this

Section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of

such arrest, he shall be released on bail.

2. When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under

sub- section it may include such conditions in such directions in the

light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including-

i. a condition that the person shall make himself available for

interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

ii. a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 8

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts

of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the

Court or to any police officer;

iii. a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous

permission of the Court;

iv. such other condition as may be imposed under sub- section (3) of

section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.

3. If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in

charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at

the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to

give bail, be shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking

cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the

first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in

conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1).

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 9

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

· Mrs. Seema Chaturvedi aged 23 years, married to Mr. Rahul Chaturvedi

on 21st January 2017 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals, has proceeded with a
legal complaint against her husband and her In-laws.
· An FIR was lodged by the complainant (No.23/18) at Chotta Shimla
Police Station against her husband, her Father-in-law, her Mother-in-law
and one Mrs. Shanti Sachdeva.
· Since the day of the Complainant`s wedding ceremony as the food
provided in the ceremony was deemed insufficient for the relatives of the
husband. The complainant has been repeatedly harassed mentally and
physically.
· An expenditure of Rs 1,20,00,000/- and an INNOVA Crista, along with
20 tolas of gold as `STREEDHAN`, incurred on the wedding ceremony.
· Further the complainant has been harassed by all four accused because
the parents of the complainant were not able to pay a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/-
· Accused persons in collusion, to malign the character of the complainant
and her family picked petty fights with her and sent her back to her
maternal house.
· After amicable settlement between her father and her in-laws, she was
taken back to her matrimonial house on the condition that she would give
in writing that she would not commit suicide. After her refusal of the
same she was sent back to her maternal house and was told to stay away
from accused No.1.
· In May 2017, the accused fed up with her constant threats to commit
suicide, filed a non-cognizable case against the Complainant. Dispute
settled in the P.S. Chotta Shimla.

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 10

· The accused threatened to kill her on 11th December, 2017 as she insisted
on going to her maternal house to attend her brother wedding ceremony
and she was forcefully driven back to her maternal house and thrown off
at Kufri road on 25th December, 2017 at 10.00 p.m.
· The complainant submitted that about 11:00.a.m on the very same day,
she received a call from her Brother-in-law; one Mr. Sooraj Gupta was on
informing her that her husband has left their house at Nav- Bahar leaving
behind a letter explaining the same.
· Subsequently, the complainant has filed an FIR on 24th March 2018 at
14.50.hrs for offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 323, 34,
504, 506 of the IPC,1860

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 11

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES

ISSUE NO. 1

WHETHER THE HUSBAND AND HIS RELATIVES ARE GREEDY

AND THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
THE PETITIONER?

ISSUE NO. 2

WHETHER PROVIDING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE ACCUSED

CAN CAUSE LIFE RISK TO THE RESPONDENT AND THE
PETITIONER IS ELIGIBLE TO GET ANTICIPATORY BAIL?

ISSUE NO. 3

WHETHER DEMANDING MONEY IS THE ONLY INTENTION OF

GETTING MARRIED?

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 12

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

ISSUE NO. 1

WHETHER THE HUSBAND AND HIS RELATIVES ARE GREEDY AND THERE IS
ANY VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITONER ?

Having an expenditure of Rs.1,20,00,000/-and getting a Innova Crista, along

with 20 tolas of gold After getting all these things the husband`s family again
demands for more money amount 10,00,000/- this type of behaviour clearly
shows the greediness of the family.
ISSUE NO. 2

WHETHER PROVIDING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE ACCUSED CAN CAUSE

LIFE RISK TO THE RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER IS ELIGIBLE TO
GET ANTICIPATORY BAIL?

Since the day of marriage the complainant has been repeatedly harassed
mentally and physically .she had been coerced to bring in the same amount
failing which she has been physically and mentally harassed by all the four
accused. she had been abused by the applicant who also threatened to kill her on
11th Dec 2017 as she insisted on going to attend her bother wedding ceremony.

ISSUE NO.3
WHETHER DEMANDING MONEY IS THE ONLY INTENTION OF GETTING
MARRIED?

Money is the only thing for which the applicant married to the respondent
Rs.1,20.00,000/- Innova Crista and 20 tolas gold after this he again demanded
for amount Rs.10,00,000.
This proved he is greedy.
After getting money and all the demands got completed the husband and his
family members starts misbehaving with the respondent .Her life becomes like
the life in a prison.

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 13

WRITTEN SUBMISSION

1. WHETHER THE HUSBAND AND HIS RELATIVES ARE GREEDY

AND THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
THE PETITONER ?

In the present case of Mr. Rahul Chaturvedi v. State of H.P. , as is clear from
the FIR filed by the complainant, the complainant had been repeatedly and
severely caused hurt by her husband and her in-laws (the accused). There has
been a gross violation of her physical, mental and moral integrity and domestic
violence has been inflicted against her as per the PWDVA 1961. As per the
issue mentioned above that there is no violation of fundamental right of the
petitioner especially Art. 21 of the constitution of India m1950 because as per
the judgment of P.CHIDMAMBRAM V. DIRECTRORATE OF
ENFORCEMENT1 It was held that under this case Art.21 of the constitution
states no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except the procedure
established by the law. However, the power conferred by the Art. 21 of the
constitution of India is not unfettered and is qualified by the later part of the
Article. Legislative intent behind the introduction of section of 438 of CRPC
1973. Is to safeguard the individual’s personal liberty and to protect him from
the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary
police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal
offence is just not an offence against an individual, rather then the larger
societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be
established between the two rights – safeguarding the personal liberty of an
individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant
anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the
appellant under the Art. 21 of the constitution of India.

[1] P. Chidambaram v. directorate of enforcement, criminal appeal no. 1340 of 2019 [arising out of SLP
[Crl.] no. 7523 of 2019] law teller Dec.2019 at page no. 593.

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 14

In other similar grounds very much responsible and shows that the petitioner is
not able to get anticipatory bail given below:-
· All the vital conditions of Section 504 have been met with in the instance case
as the Accused clearly abused and tortured the complainant with an intention to
break public peace as any reasonable man would retaliate to such inhuman
treatment in such a manner essentially leading to breach of peace.

· From the above, it may be safely concluded the allegations made against the
accused are justifiable. The accused has not only committed offences under
Sections 498(A), 406, 323, 34, 504, 506 of the IPC, 1860 but has also infringed
the Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty of the complainant
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and reinforced by the
UDHR,

· ICCPR and the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women. It is

further submitted that the complainant is eligible for maintenance from her
husband as demanded by her.
· The allegations made against the accused are justifiable.

Section 34:

When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common

intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as
if it were done by him alone.
In case of S. 34, it is well established that a common intention presupposes prior
concert. It requires a pre-arranged plan because before a man can be vicariously
convicted for the criminal act of another, the act must have been done in
furtherance of the common intention of all of them. Accordingly, there must
have been prior meeting of the minds. Several persons can simultaneously
attack a man. Each can have the same intention, that is, intention to kill, and
MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 15

each can individually inflict a separate fatal blow and yet none would have the
common intention required by the section because there was no prior meeting of
the minds to form a pre-arranged plan.

Therefore S. 34, IPC, would apply even if no charge is framed under that
section provided of course from the evidence it becomes clear that there was
pre-arranged plan to achieve the commonly intended object. Thus where six
persons were charged under ss. 148, 302/149 and 307/149, IPC, but two were
acquitted, the remaining four accused could be convicted on the charges of
murder and attempt to murder with the aid of S.34 of the Penal Code. This
section really means that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly,
it is just as same as if each of them had done it individually.
Section 323: Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
When the death is caused by blow on deceased by fist, there being no intention
or knowledge that death would be caused, conviction under Section 323 only is
proper.
The accused, who had a quarrel with his debtor over non-discharge of a loan
pelted brickbats at his house knowing that there were occupants in it, and hurt
one of them who was under medical treatment for ten days, it was held, that the
accused should be convicted under Section 323 and not under Section 326, as
the hurt caused was the natural and probable consequence of his act.

Section 406 – Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years,
or with fine, or with both.
To constitute this offence, there must be dishonest misappropriation by a person
in whom confidence is placed as to the custody or management of the property
MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 16

in respect of which the criminal breach of trust is charged. The ownership or

beneficial interest in the property in respect of which the criminal breach of
trust is alleged to have been committed must be in some person other than the
accused and the latter must hold it on account of some person or in some way
for his benefit.
As in the present case, the entrustment is apparent and the accused has failed to
account for the property when he is accountable and is not able to offer an
acceptable explanation for the loss, the onus to establish which is upon him, is
further offering a false explanation that the gold ornaments of the complainant
are in her possession, a criminal intention maybe readily inferred. It must be
noted that the said gold articles (of 20 tolas in total) were gifted to the
complainant on her marriage with accused as Streedhan..
Any property or valuable given to a woman at the time of her marriage or
during the marriage ceremony, any property conferred on her by way of a will,
any gift given to her by her parents, siblings and in-laws are all part of the
woman’s property (Streedhan). She is the rightful owner of all such property
and her husband or his relatives have no right over such property. With a view
to avoiding any likely future dispute regarding streedhan property, the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 has provided that the presents made at the time of
marriage should be entered in the list to be maintained in accordance with the
rules made under the Act.

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 17

2. WHETHER PROVIDING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE

ACCUSED CAN CAUSE LIFE RISK TO THE RESPONDENT AND
THE PETITIONER IS ELIGIBLE TO GET ANTICIPATORY BAIL?

As the section stated itself that the petitioner is liable for giving punishment
similarly not able to get any type of bail due to the nature of the case in many
case where the courts clearly stated that in these grounds person is not claim
anticipatory bail.

AMIT KAIRON V. STATE OF HARYANA AND SIDDHARAM

SATLINGAPPA MHETRE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
OTHERS 2
In this case it was held by the Hon’ble supreme court has laid down
certain factors and parameters while considering the application for
anticipatory bail, which are as under:-
· “The nature and gravity of the case and exact role of the accused must
be properly comprehended before arrest is made.
· The antecedents of the applicant including fact as to whether the
accused has to previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a
court in respect of cognizable offence;
· The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
· The possibility of accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or the
other offences;
· Where the case have been made only with the object of injuring or
humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her ;
· Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in case of large
magnitude affecting a very large number of people ;
· The courts must evaluate the entire available against the accused very
carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the
accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the
help of sec.34 149 of IPC, the court should consider with even greater
care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of
common knowledge and concern
· While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance
has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be
caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be
prevention of harassment , humiliation and unjustified detention of the
accused ;
MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 18

· THE COURT TO CONSIDER REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF

TAMPERING OF THE WITNESS OR APPREHENSION OF THREAT TO
THE COMPLAINT; and ,
· Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the
element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter
of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the
genuineness of the 9 of 11 prosecution. However, in the normal course
of events the accused is entitled to an order of bail.’’

[2] CRM-M-29867 OF 2019.2011(1) RCR [CRIMINAL] 126.

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 19

Section 498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to

cruelty.-- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation - For the purposes of this section," cruelty" means-

(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her
or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Cruelty to wife: Offence: Provision Prospective –
In another case, husband harassed the deceased for non fulfilment of
dowry demand and had even threatened her with dire consequences. It
was held that threat to life was unleashed by the accused clearly
amounted to cruelty.

Demand for Dowry: –

The accused was found to have harassed the victim and subject her to cruelty in
relation to demand for dowry. It was held that conviction of accused under sec.
498 –A was proper. Harassment caused to victim was considered cruelty and
within the meaning of section 498A. The allegations made by a complainant
were that she was being harassed for dowry and articles for dowry were retained
by her in-laws after turning her out of the house. Complaint was hence filed at
the place where was residing with her parents. It was held that the accused shall
continue committing breach of trust so long as the accused didn’t return the
articles of dowry. Complaint was held to be maintainable. The instant case is
MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 20

strikingly similar and therefore a complaint under Section 498-A must be held
to be maintainable.

In an instant case, the husband was proved to be a habitual trouble maker

and had developed the habit of beating up his wife wherein his conviction
under section 498-A was held proper action 504: Whoever intentionally
insults, and thereby gives provocation to any other person, intending or
knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the
public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine or both.

Section 504: Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives

provocation to any other person, intending or knowing it to be likely that
such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit
any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or both

This section provides a remedy for using abusive and insulting language.
Abusive language which may lead to breach of the public peace is not an
offence. There must be an intentional insult. Insult which may be offered
by words or conduct. If it is by words, the words must amount to
something more than mere vulgar abuse. It is not every insult that can be
classified as “intentional insult” coming within the purview of Sec 504.
Mere breach of good manners does not constitute an offence under this
section. If the insult is of such nature that it may give provocation which
might rouse a man to act either to break or the public peace or to commit
any other offence, the offence is committed. The offence contemplated in
Section 504 is a serious one. It is obviously intended to deal with persons
who are responsible for breaches of peace of the commission of offences
as those who openly abet or incite them.

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 21

Section 506 – Punishment for criminal intimidation -- Whoever commits

the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with
fine, or with both;

And if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the

destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with
death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to seven years, or to impute un chastity to a woman, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

A bare perusal of section 506 makes it clear that Part II of the section
deals with a graver form of offence of criminal intimidation which is
punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

GRANT OF BAIL TO CO-ACCUSED (PARITY):

When one co-accused is acquitted, on that ground alone the absconding
co-accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Where the allegations were
that the petitioners harassed the complainant and beat her, the co-accused
sister-in-law who merely instigated the petitioner to beat the complainant
was granted anticipatory bail, but other petitioners were not granted
anticipatory bail on the grounds of parity.

In conclusion, it is humbly requested of the Court to deny the applicant an

anticipatory bail so that he can be brought to justice.

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 22

The offence of criminal intimidation has been defined under section

503 of IPC and Section 506 provides Punishment for the same –

Threatening a person with injury-

To his person, reputation and property; or

To the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested

The threat must be with the intent;

To cause alarm to that person; or
To cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the
means of avoiding execution of such threat; or
In order to bring home the Accused under section 506, the complainant in the
instant case has asserted:

That the accused threatened her;

That this threatening was with injury to his person, reputation and property; or
to the person, reputation or property of another in whom the accused is
interested;

That this threatening was intended to cause alarm to the accused or to cause the
accused to do any act which is he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any
act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding
execution of such threat;

● That the accused has in fact been alarmed by the threat.

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 23

● From the above, it may be safely concluded the allegations made against
the accused are justifiable. The accused has not only committed offences
under Sections 498(A), 406, 323, 34, 504, 506 of the IPC, 1860 but has
also infringed the Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty of the
complainant guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
reinforced by the UDHR , ICCPR and the Declaration on the Elimination
of Violence against women. It is further submitted that the complainant is
eligible for maintenance from her husband as demanded by her.
· Under section 34 of the IPC, when a criminal act is done by several
persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such
persons is liable for the act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone.

· This section makes admissible in evidence things, actions, said or done

by a conspirator in reference to the common design.

· One of the objects of law of evidence is to restrict the investigation made

by the courts within the bounds prescribed by general convenience and
this object would be completely frustrated by the admission, on all
occasions, of every circumstance of either side having some remote and
conjectural probative force.

· The precise amount of which might itself by ascertainable only by a long

trial and a determination of fresh collateral issues, growing up in endless
succession, as the inquiry proceeds.

The grounds on which the bail application has been filed are not tenable.

Grant of bail –

Similarly above mention cases there is another important case known as:-

Nissar Kunju v. State of Kerala 3

As per the facts of the case the petition was filed by the petitioner for
anticipatory bail and he committed alleged offences are under sections 498A
and section 34 of Indian penal code .according the statement of the prosecution,
accused nos. 1 and 2 allegedly harassed de facto complainant, who is a wife of
first accused. The defacto complainant, on the instruction from first accused,

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 24

entrusted gold ornaments to second accused for purchased property in the name
of first accused and de facto complainant. But, the property was purchased in
the name of first accused. Thereafter also, petitioner demanded money from the
defacto complainant and her father was forced to pay Rs. of 2 lakhs. De facto
complainant was residing in the said house in the said property, but she was
ousted from the house. First accused was working abroad and offence was
committed in the furtherance of common intention by the both accused.

And as per the para 5 of the same case learned counsel for petitioners submitted
that third and forth petitioners are not accused in the crime and the police have
no intention to arrest them. This submission is recorded and hence, no ground
exist to ground exists to grant anticipatory bail to them. As far as accused nos.1
and 2 are concerned, there are allegations of matrimonial cruelty and it is not
fit case to grant anticipatory bail to them , it is submitted. After hearing of the
both of the parties the court rejected anticipatory bail and petition held
dismissed.

Accused constable husband set deceased on fire after his mother poured
kerosene on her. The fact was stated in the dying declaration made by the
deceased and presence of husband in the house was established by the evidence
of witness and prima facie material on record established involvement of both
accused in the alleged offence.

It was held that bail granted to mother-in-law needed no interference but bail of
husband could be cancelled as being a police constable, he could influence
prosecution witness.

Section 438, CrPC –

Who can apply for anticipatory bail?

A person apprehending arrest by magistrate remanding him to custody under

section 209 can apply for anticipatory bail under section 438.

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 25

Where the accused apprehends arrest in view of the fact that a non-bail able
warrant has been issued against him on the basis of charge- sheet filed against
him, he can apply for anticipatory bail

A person already on bail or apprehending an anticipatory bail can’t apply for

bail/anticipatory bail in respect of the same accusation.

Presence of the petitioner (Sub sec 1B) –

The presence of an applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the

time of the final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the
Court, if on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court
considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice.

This amendment in the section will come into force from the date of its
notification.

[3]
Bail Application. No. 6524 of 2008

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 26

Applicability to all non-bailable offences

Section 438 applies to all non-bailable offences; it is not confined to duly those
non-bailable offences which are punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

Applicability to cognizable and non-cognizable cases – Anticipatory bail can be

granted in respect of non-bailable offences whether they are cognizable or non-
cognizable offences.

The courts have the power to grant anticipatory bail even in cases where either
cognizance has been taken or charge sheet has been filed.

The law makes punishable the insulting provocation which, under ordinary
circumstances, would cause a breach of the peace to be committed, and the
offender is not protected from the consequences of his act because the person
insulted does not take the provocation in the manner intended , or exercises self-
control, or being terrified by the insult, or overpowered by the personality of the
offender, does not actually break the peace or commits another offence.

In judging whether a particular abusive language comes within the mischief of

section 504, I.P.C., the Court has to see what would be the effect of the
language used in ordinary course of events and not how the complainant
actually behaved on being abused. Merely because a man of cool temperament
did not react violently or break the peace it does not follow that no offence was
committed by the accused. The supreme court dismissed another petition on the
same ground in this case :-MAYANK PATHAK V. STATE (GOVERNMENT
OF DELHI)4 A complainant was filed against the petitioner under section 498A
of Indian penal code,1860. There were serious allegations of cruelty and torture
at the hands of petitioner and alleged desertion of complainant as a result of
beating. The anticipatory bail was not granted.

4 AIR 2015 SC [SUPP]301.

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 27

In the another case :-

VINOD CHOPRA & ANOTHER V. STATE OF HARYANA5

The present is such a case of harassment and acts of cruelty having been
committed upon complainant on account of dowry. She was turned out of
matrimonial home and, thereafter divorce petition has been filed. Efforts were
also made by this court to reconcile the matter. Parties also sent to the
medication and conciliation centre of this court and, however, mediation failed.

Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief
of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition
filed by the petitioners- Vinod Chopra and Veena Chopra for grant of
anticipatory bail is, hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit.

SCOPE AND OBJECT:

For an offence under S. 504, what is material is not the reaction of the
complainant which might vary according to the sensitiveness of the individual
insulted but the intention of the offender to provoke or his knowledge that he is
likely to provoke the person insulted to commit an offence.

The offence punishable under S. 504 of the I.P.C. is a distinct offence which
comes under the category of misdemeanours. Using foul and provocative
language against any person which has a tendency of provoking a person to
commit an offence is made punishable under this section.

INSULT: Intentional insulting giving provocation to cause breach of peace is

an offence answering S. 504, I.P.C. Thus would words used by the accused
should not only give insult but also must provoke a man to cause breach of
peace or to commit any other offence, or an offence under S.504, I.P.C.
MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 28

An insult which under ordinary circumstances would be likely to provoke the

person insulted to cause a breach of peace is within the provisions of the section
although the person insulted may have been reduced to a state of abject terror so
as to render improbable that he would commit a breach of peace.

The Court has merely to consider the standard of an ordinary reasonable man to
see to see if the insult offered is such as is ordinarily sufficient to arouse
passions and provoke retaliation by words or deed.

If the abusive language used or insult hurled, in the ordinary circumstances are
such that they ordinarily provoke the man or woman of his or her position to
commit a breach of the peace. The mere forbearance of the person insulted
being provoked is not sufficient to protect the offender.

5 Crl.M.No.-34686 of 2010
MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 29

3 WHETHER DEMANDING MONEY IS THE ONLY INTENTION OF

GETTING MARRIED?

As the facts stated itself that the accused and his family were demanded dowry
on many occasion that’s why the petition had married with her. In another case
it was held that by the supreme court that any demand of dowry is fall under
section 498A of Indian penal code 1860. And hence that is one of the sufficient
ground to prove cruelty.

WAZIR CHAND V. STATE OF HARYANA6

As per the Para 7 of the judgment of the case the Hon’ble supreme court
specifically stated that a reading said section shows that, whoever being
husband or relatives of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years
and shall also be liable to fine. And hence it is also stated that with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of
property or valuable security or harassment is due to the failure of such demand.
The cruelty under the explanation is convicted with unlawful demand of
property. It may that she is coercing for compelling her to bring the property or
the valuable security or she may be coerces for not supplying the proposal or
valuable security demanded. Repeated demand of dowry by husband and his
parents and harassment for it amounts to cruelty.

6 AIR 1989 SC 378.

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 30

PRAYER

In the light of the raised, argument advanced and authorities cited ,the counsels
for the Respondent humbly and forever pray before this Hon`ble Court to
kindly:-

REJECT THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION

AND\OR

PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST

OF JUSTICE,
EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

And for this the Respondent as in duty bound shall forever humbly pray.

(Counsels on behalf of the Respondent)

MEMORIALS ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT