Defence Final Memorandum

4TH JUSTICE MAHMOOD INTRA DEPARTMENTAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
4JMIMC/34
4TH JUSTICE MAHMOOD INTRA DEPARTMENTAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

2022
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
VADODRA, GUJARAT
G.R. No. 27 of 2022
IN THE MATTER of
STATE OF GUJARAT…………………………………………………………………
Prosecution
v/s
SUNIL &
OTHERS………………………………………………………………………..Defence
SUBMITTED TO
MOOT COURT SOCIETY
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………..
(ii)
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………..…(iii)
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………...
(vi)
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………(vii)
STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………………(ix)
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………….(x)
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE ACCUSED SUNIL (A1), MECHANIC (A2), AND SAMEER (A3) LIABLE
FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER SECTION 120B INDIAN PENAL CODE
1860?..............................................................................................................................1
1.1 AGREE TO DO OR CAUSE TO BE DONE………………………………………...

…1
1.2 NO PRIOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ACCUSED WITH REGARD TO THE
COMMISSION OF ANY
CRIME…………………………………………………...2
1.3 KNOWLEDGE OF THE OBJECTIVE IS
NECESSARY………………………………..3
UNDER SECTION 354C, 354D, 509 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 AND
SECTION 66E, AND 67A OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT

2000?.................................5

(i)
2.1 LACK OF
EVIDENCE…………………………………………………………….5
2.2 CHARGES UNDER IT

ACT……………………………………………………….7
3. WHETHER ACCUSED SUNIL (A1) ENTITLED FOR
BAIL?...............................................9
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………...(xii)
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
A1 Sunil
A2 Mechanic
A3 Sameer
r/w Read With
IPC Indian Penal Code
IT Information Technology
u/s Under Section
§ Section
AIR All India Reporter
SC Supreme Court
v/s Versus
Id Previous Citation
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
CriLJ Criminal Law Journal
Edn. Edition
PR Personal Bond
Const. Constitution
Art. Article

(ii)

(iii)
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Rameshwar Daga v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1965 Cal 38………………………………..

…2
KS Narayan v. S. Gopinath, 1982 Cr LJ 1611 (Mad)

…………………………………………..2
Krishnalal Naskar v. State, 1982 Cr LJ 1305 (Cal)

……………………………………………..2
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1989 SC

1883………………………………………2
E. K. Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC

1066…………………………………….3
Director of Public Prosecutors v. Doot, (1973) 1 All ER

940…………………………………..3
Jagannath Mishra v. State of Orissa, 1974 Cut LT

1253………………………………………..3
Topandas v State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC

33………………………………………………...4
Haradhan Chakrabarty v Union of India, AIR 1990 SC

1210…………………………………..4
Anvar P.V. v/s P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 473 : (2015) 1 Supreme Court
Cases (Cri) 24 : (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Civ) 27 : (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases
(L&S) 108 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC
732………………………………………………………..6
Hem Raj v/s State of Haryana, (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 614: 2005 Supreme Court
Cases (Cri) 1646: 2005 SSC OnLine SC
617…………………………………………………………7

(iv)
Aveek Sarkar and Anr v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 257 : (2014) 2 SCC
(Cri) 291……………………………………………………………………………………….7
Suhas Katti v/s State of Tamil Nadu, C No. 4680 of

2004……………………………………...7
Pramod Anand Dhumal v/s State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 34 : (2021) 1 Bom
CR (Cri) 762 : (2021) 1 AIR Bom R (Cri) 800…………………………………………………
8
Sanjay Chandra and Ors. vs. Central bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40: (2011) 6 UJ
4077 (SC)………………………………………………………………………………………
9
Nikhil Racheti v/s State of Maharashtra, 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1650 : (2006) 3 AIR Bom R
561 : (2006) 2 AIR Jhar R (NOC 656)
106……………………………………………………..9
Anupam Ajit Kambli v/s The State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8702;
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 788 of
2016…………………………………………………………….10
Maulana Mohmmad Amir Rishadi vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012(2) Mh. L. J. (Cri.)
412……………………………………………………………………………………………10
Kashiram & Ors v. State, AIR 1960 MP

312………………………………………………….10
Sumit vs. State of U.P., 2010 Cri.L.J. 1435 (SC)

……………………………………………...10
State of Maharashtra & Ors. v/s Som Nath Thapa & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC
659………………….3
Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v/s State of Maharashtra, 1971 AIR 885, 1971 SCR
(1)
119………………………………………………………………………………………….4

(v)
Ram Singh v/s Bureau of Narcotics, AIR 2011 SC

2490……………………………………….6
BOOKS
Halsbury’s Laws of England, 44 (4th edn.) Lexis Nexis 1997.
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal: Indian Penal Code, Lexis Nexis 2019.
Batuk Lal, The Law of Evidence, Central Law Agency.
KD Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code 6th edn., Universal Law Publication.
RV Kelkar’s, Criminal Procedure 6th edn., EBC.
Apar Gupta: Commentary on Information Technology Act, 3rd edn., 2016.
LEGISLATIONS
The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Information Technology Act, 2000.
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
The Constitution of India.
WEBSITES
https://www.scconline.com.nludelhi.remotexs.in/?login=true
https://www.manupatrafast.com.nludelhi.remotexs.in/
http://www.livelaw.in.nludelhi.remotexs.in/
http://www.indiastat.com.nludelhi.remotexs.in/
https://heinonline.org.nludelhi.remotexs.in/HOL/Welcome

(vi)
http://www.jstor.org.nludelhi.remotexs.in/
https://advance.lexis.com.nludelhi.remotexs.in/firsttime?crid=67d51024-5d43-47fa-8559-
b808c63d7ace
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsel for the Defence most humbly and respectfully submits before the jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in the District Court of Vadodara and accepts
that this Court has the power to adjudicate the present case under section 177 of The Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973.

(vii)
Also, the counsel has applied for Regular Bail under section 437(2) of The Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Akansha is the executive manager of the company named K.S.
2. She purchased the latest model of television and got it installed in her bedroom.
3. After a week, her television was not receiving signal properly with along with the
sound problem.
4. She approached Sunil (Owner of T.V. shop).
5. A mechanic visited and adjusted the display and sound settings of T.V. by putting
some devices inside the T.V set.
6. After 7 months she received a letter on her doorstep where “Ms. Akansha I have an
eye on you” was written with blood.

(viii)
7. Along with that letter some private photographs (i.e., while sleeping, changing her
clothes and half nudes) were sent.
8. She lodge a complaint to the police.
9. Investigation by police of Akansha’s bedroom was unresolved.
10. The cyber cell of police was involved to solve the mystery.
11. One day, while she was driving, one speeding vehicle, came toward and crashed into
her car.
12. Akansha and the other driver both were critically injured.
13. After regaining consciousness she informed the police that the other person was Mr
Sunil (Owner of the shop).
14. The police found a camera installed inside her TV.
15. Police caught the mechanic, who told that he was instructed to install it by his boss
Mr Sunil.
16. Mr. Sunil was arrested and his cell phone was seized.
17. Mr Sunil sent Akansha’s photos to Sameer.
18. Sameer further sent Akansha’s photos to Anil.
19. Anil blocked on receiving such photos and did not send them further.
20. Charges framed against all accused.

(ix)
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER SECTION 120B INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860?
SECTION 66E, AND 67A OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000?
3. WHETHER ACCUSED SUNIL (A1) ENTITLED FOR BAIL?

(x)
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The defense submits that no offense under section120B of the IPC was committed as there
was no agreement between the three accused that would constitute a criminal conspiracy
under S. 120A. It is essential here to note that when the evidence is only circumstantial, it
must be such as would not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but also
inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. According to section 10 of the
Indian Evidence Act, the first condition that needs to be satisfied so as for anything said,
written or done by the conspirators to be admissible in proving consort is to prove a prima
facie case of conspiracy which should show an appearance of coherence.

(xi)
It is humbly submitted that the accused pleads not guilty. It is a cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that prosecution is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the possibility of
any reasonable doubt. Section 85B of the Indian Evidence Act states that only in the case
of secured electronic record, the court shall presume that such records have not been
altered. In the case of other electronic records section 65B insists for a certificate. The
prosecution has not certified the electronic record presented as evidence in the present
matter. No room for doubt should be left regarding the content. Also, it is clear in present
matter that the photos were not published on any social media platform. The sender of photos
in envelope is also unknown. The circumstances create doubt regarding the content.
Therefore, section 67 & 67A cannot be attracted.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court to grant bail to the accused Sunil. Relying
on the case laws referred in argument advanced section the bail is to be granted u/s 437(2)
Cr.PC. In this case the accused doesn’t have any previous criminal records. It’s very clear
from the facts of the case that the Sunil is accused of non-bailable offences and hasn’t
qualified the above mentioned conditions and can be granted bail.

(xii)

(xiii)
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Sunil hereinafter referred to as A1, i.e., Accused no. 1
Mechanic hereinafter referred to as A2, i.e., Accused no. 2
Sameer hereinafter referred to as A3, i.e., Accused no. 3
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the accused are not guilty of the offence
of criminal conspiracy u/s 120B of IPC. Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines
“criminal conspiracy”. It states that-
120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.-- When two or more persons agree to

do, or cause to be done,-
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a
criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall

amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done
by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such
agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
1.1 AGREE TO DO OR CAUSE TO BE DONE
The defense submits that no offense under section120B of the IPC was committed as there
was no agreement between the three accused that would constitute a criminal conspiracy
under S. 120A. Furthermore, even if there were to be such an agreement, the circumstances at

PAGE |1
the time of offence being committed would be such that it was not done in furtherance to the
common intention or agreement of the accused.
It is essential here to note that when the evidence is only circumstantial, it must be such as
would not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but also inconsistent with any
reasonable hypothesis of his innocence1. Also, the court in the K. S. Narayanan case2 as well
as the Krishnalal Naskar case3 has held that although there was no requirement for concrete
evidence of a conspiracy, it is necessary that such a conspiracy charge contain particulars of
the names of the place or places where it was hatched, the persons hatching it, how it was
hatched and for what purpose it was hatched. The prosecution’s case highlights little, if at all,
about the particulars of the conspiracy, in the present fact circumstances. Relying on the
abovementioned cases there is no evidence as where the conspiracy hatched or where the
agreement took place between the accused.4
1.2 NO PRIOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ACCUSED WITH REGARD TO THE
COMMISSION OF ANY CRIME
According to section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, the first condition that needs to be
satisfied so as for anything said, written or done by the conspirators to be admissible in
proving consort is to prove a prima facie case of conspiracy which should show an
appearance of coherence.5 The innocuous, innocent or inadvertent events and incidents
should not enter the judicial verdict6. Also, even if the agreement were to be proved, it would
1
Rameshwar Daga v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1965 Cal 38.
2
KS Narayan v. S. Gopinath, 1982 Cr LJ 1611 (Mad).
3
Krishnalal Naskar v. State, 1982 Cr LJ 1305 (Cal).
4
Id.
5
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1989 SC 1883.
6
E. K. Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 1066.

PAGE |2
continue only as long as the agreement to affect the unlawful object continues 7. Lastly, there
must be a meeting of minds resulting in an ultimate decision taken by the conspirators
regarding the commission of an offense8. There is no established fact in the present case of
the meeting of mind between the three accused.
Therefore, as there was no proof of prior consort between the accused persons prior to the
commission of the said offense the accused are charged jointly, even if the prosecution were
indeed to prove such an offense, the actual commission of offence would be the first prima
facie evidence of a conspiracy. A1, A2 & A3 cannot be tried of the offense of criminal
conspiracy as there was no such an act that was done in furtherance of a common design.
1.3 KNOWLEDGE OF THE OBJECTIVE IS NECESSARY
Relying on State of Maharashtra & Ors. v/s Som Nath Thapa & Ors. 9; “For a person to
conspire with another, he must have knowledge of what the co-conspirators were wanting to
achieve and thereafter having the intent to further the illegal act takes recourse to a course of
conduct to achieve the illegal end or facilitate its accomplishment”. It is very clear from this
case that all persons accused of criminal conspiracy must have knowledge of the common
object to be achieved. In the present case A1, A2 & A3 did not have any prior agreement,
therefore, such knowledge on each of them cannot be established. Also, it is clear from
language of section 120A that, two or more two persons are required in criminal conspiracy.
In Topandas v State of Bombay,10 which has been cited by the Supreme Court with approval
7
Director of Public Prosecutors v. Doot, (1973) 1 All ER 940.
8
Jagannath Mishra v. State of Orissa, 1974 Cut LT 1253.
9
(1996) 4 SCC 659.
10
Topandas v State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 33.

PAGE |3
in Haradhan Chakrabarty v Union of India11, it was laid down that “two or more persons
must be parties to such an agreement and one person alone can never be held guilty of
criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that one cannot conspire with oneself.” Here, only
circumstantial evidence of photographs in the mobile of A1 are present. Therefore, A1 alone
cannot be alone tried u/s 120B. There is no evidence that the prosecution has established
about the envelopes and phone calls received.
In Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v/s State of Maharashtra12, it was held that it is
extremely rare to find direct evidence of criminal conspiracy so, “once reasonable ground is
shown for believing that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence then
anything done by any one of them in reference to their common intention after the same is
entertained becomes, according to the law of evidence relevant for proving both conspiracy
and the offences committed pursuant thereto”. The prosecution has failed to prove any
reasonable ground on which charge of criminal conspiracy could be sustained.
It is humbly submitted that the accused pleads not guilty. The charges framed against all
accused u/s 120B IPC cannot be sustained against all as proven earlier. The ingredients of the
11
Haradhan Chakrabarty v Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1210.
12
1971 AIR 885, 1971 SCR (1) 119.

PAGE |4
offence punishable u/s 354C, 354D & 509 IPC cannot be stated to be fulfilled. The counsel
would emphasize the evidence presented by the prosecution to defend the present matter.
2.1 LACK OF EVIDENCE
The shreds of evidence presented before this court by the prosecution in the present matter
are-
i. Envelope with no name and address of the sender.13

ii. A camera inside the television operational by remote.14
iii. Cellphone of A1 containing photograph of Akansha.15
It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt. It is also a settled principle that
thought there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused but
considered as a whole there is invariably a long distance to travel and whole of this distance
must be covered by the prosecution by legal, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence before
an accused can be convicted.
i. The prosecution has failed to establish about the sender of envelopes.
ii. The camera inside the television is operational by a remote. The remote is still not
found by which such camera can be controlled. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that
the camera was controlled by accused A1 or any other accused.
iii. The mechanic told police that he had installed camera inside the T.V. on instructions
of his boss A1. Relying on section 25 of The Indian Evidence Act which says that
confessional statements made to police cannot be admissible in the Court of law.
Also, relying on Ram Singh v/s Bureau of Narcotics 16; held statements made before
police officers is inadmissible evidence.
13
Factual Sheet (Para 1).
14
15
16
AIR 2011 SC 2490

PAGE |5
iv. There is ambiguity in facts as it says “…some device…” 17 and further “…

camera…”18. Also, Akansha received the envelope after 7 months which is a long
time from establishing that ‘some device’ was a ‘camera’. Why would accuse wait for
7 month to send the envelope. This creates a doubt before this court in the light of
present facts.
v. The remaining is photograph of Akansha in cellphone of accused. Section 65B(1) of

the Indian Evidence Act provides for electronic record to be admissible after
certificate of such electronic record is given by the prosecution.
“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained
in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or
copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter
referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if
the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the
information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any
proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence
of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct
evidence would be admissible...”19
Relying on Anvar P.V. v/s P.K. Basheer20, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, the
mode by which the electronic record was obtained must be described by the
certificate. There is ambiguity in determining the mode herein the present case as the
counsel has already proved about the ambiguity of facts related to ‘some device’ and
‘camera’ installed along with 7 months gap.
vi. Relying on Hem Raj v/s State of Haryana21; there was lack of direct evidence for
which the conviction was set aside.
Therefore, keeping in view the above-mentioned points the conviction cannot be sustained
against any of the accused u/s 354C, 354D & 509 of IPC.
17
18
19
Indian Evidence Act, § 65B(1).
20
(2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 473 : (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 24 : (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases
(Civ) 27 : (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 108 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 732.
21
(2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 614: 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1646: 2005 SSC OnLine SC 617.

PAGE |6
2.2 CHARGES UNDER IT ACT
Relying on Aveek Sarkar and Anr v. State of West Bengal and Ors. 22, the ‘Community
Standards Test’ as the basis of the determination of obscenity was set. “It said that an act can
be considered obscene and a charge of obscenity can be brought only if it contains matter that
arouses lustful and depraved thoughts and not merely for if the content is rude.” “It states
that for a material to be obscene, exploitation of sex must be a dominant characteristic and
undue in nature and will be judged from the perspective of an average person, by applying
contemporary community standard.” There is no such fact in the present case where there is
exploitation of sex as dominant character.
The counsel would rely on Suhas Katti v/s State of Tamil Nadu23, the documentary evidence
was not sustainable under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 85B of
the Indian Evidence Act states that only in the case of secured electronic record, the
court shall presume that such records have not been altered. In the case of other
electronic records section 65B insists for a certificate. The prosecution has not certified
the electronic record presented as evidence in the present matter. The photograph of
Akansha in the phone of accused A1 cannot be sole ground of conviction u/s 66E, 67 &
67A of the IT Act. The legislative wisdom itself accepts that electronic records can be
altered and hence the certificate.
Section 66E, 67 & 67A of IT Act was enacted in order to deal with the pornographic content
whether published or transmitted. The conviction under these sections can be sustained for
‘lascivious’ and ‘obscene’ content and these two words are highly ambiguous and leaves
scope for misuse and misinterpretation. The word publishes and transmits in the section is
ambiguous and not clear as to what kind of publication and transmission would attract the
foregoing sections. Therefore, relying on Pramod Anand Dhumal v/s State of Maharashtra24,
the court held that the content must be explicit in order to attract section 67 & 67A of the IT
22
(2014) 4 SCC 257 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 291.
23
C No. 4680 of 2004.
24
2021 SCC OnLine Bom 34 : (2021) 1 Bom CR (Cri) 762 : (2021) 1 AIR Bom R (Cri) 800.

PAGE |7
Act. This means that no room for doubt should be left regarding the content. Also, it is clear
in present matter that the photos were not published on any social media platform. The sender
of photos in envelope is also unknown. The circumstances create doubt regarding the content.
Therefore, section 67 & 67A cannot be attracted.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court to grant bail to the accused Sunil. It’s
rightly said that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
the procedure established by Law.25
25
INDIA CONST. Art. 21.

PAGE |8
Section 437 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states that a person accused of non-
bailable offences can be granted bail provided the accused does not qualify the following
conditions:
 There are reasonable grounds to believe that he has committed an offence punishable
with death penalty or life imprisonment.
 That the accused has committed a cognizable offence and he had been previously
convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment
of seven years or more or if the accused been convicted on two or more instances of a
cognizable and non-bailable offence.
In this case the accused doesn’t have any previous criminal records. It’s very clear from the
facts of the case that the Sunil is accused of non-bailable offences and hasn’t qualified the
above mentioned conditions and can be granted bail.
Relying on Sanjay Chandra and Ors. vs. Central bureau of Investigation 26, Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that unless exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court which
may defeat proper investigation and fair trial, the Court will not decline to grant bail to a
person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Relying on Nikhil Racheti v/s State of Maharashtra27, the accused charged u/s 292 & 294 of
IPC and u/s 67 & 72 of the IT Act released on bail on bail on furnishing PR. bond in the sum
of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
Relying on Anupam Ajit Kambli v/s The State of Maharashtra 28, the accused charged u/s 501
& 506 of IPC and u/s 67 & 67A of the IT Act the applicant was granted bail on executing PR
Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.
Relying on Maulana Mohmmad Amir Rishadi vs. State of U.P. and another 29, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, bail cannot be denied.
26
(2012) 1 SCC 40: (2011) 6 UJ 4077 (SC).
27
2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1650 : (2006) 3 AIR Bom R 561 : (2006) 2 AIR Jhar R (NOC 656) 106.
28
2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8702; Anticipatory Bail Application No. 788 of 2016.
29
2012(2) Mh. L. J. (Cri.) 412.

PAGE |9
In Kashiram & Ors v. State30, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail in non-bailable
offences, it has been held that a person is entitled to his liberty even in case he/ she is accused
of a Non-Bailable offence and the right of an accused person should not be dealt with by a
court in a superficial manner. In fact, CrPC provides that in case the court has sufficient
reason to believe that the case in hand requires further investigation to prove the guilt of the
accused; such person should be enlarged on bail.
Relying on Sumit vs. State of U.P.31, it was held that even if there are other criminal cases
pending, accused should be granted bail.
After going through all the provisions, case laws, contentions and argument advanced, it is
humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court to grant him bail.
30
AIR 1960 MP 312.
31
2010 Cri.L.J. 1435 (SC).

P A G E | 10
PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons, the defence respectfully requests this Court to declare-
A. A1(Sunil), A2(Mechanic) & A3(Sameer) are not liable for any charge framed
under the Indian Penal Code 1860 and under any charge of the Information
Technology Act 2000 due to the lack of evidences.
B. Bail to be granted to accused A1 u/s 437(2) Cr.P.C.
And pass such order keeping in view the principle of equity and good conscience.
Respectfully Submitted
COUNSEL FOR DEFENCE

(xii)

Defence Final Memorandum

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defence Final Memorandum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4TH JUSTICE MAHMOOD INTRA DEPARTMENTAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

4TH JUSTICE MAHMOOD INTRA DEPARTMENTAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

G.R. No. 27 of 2022

MOOT COURT SOCIETY

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

1.1 AGREE TO DO OR CAUSE TO BE DONE………………………………………...

1.2 NO PRIOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ACCUSED WITH REGARD TO THE

1.3 KNOWLEDGE OF THE OBJECTIVE IS

SECTION 66E, AND 67A OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

2.2 CHARGES UNDER IT

3. WHETHER ACCUSED SUNIL (A1) ENTITLED FOR

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Rameshwar Daga v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1965 Cal 38………………………………..

KS Narayan v. S. Gopinath, 1982 Cr LJ 1611 (Mad)

Krishnalal Naskar v. State, 1982 Cr LJ 1305 (Cal)

Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1989 SC

E. K. Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC

Director of Public Prosecutors v. Doot, (1973) 1 All ER

Jagannath Mishra v. State of Orissa, 1974 Cut LT

Topandas v State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC

Haradhan Chakrabarty v Union of India, AIR 1990 SC

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Suhas Katti v/s State of Tamil Nadu, C No. 4680 of

Kashiram & Ors v. State, AIR 1960 MP

Sumit vs. State of U.P., 2010 Cri.L.J. 1435 (SC)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Ram Singh v/s Bureau of Narcotics, AIR 2011 SC

Halsbury’s Laws of England, 44 (4th edn.) Lexis Nexis 1997.

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal: Indian Penal Code, Lexis Nexis 2019.

Batuk Lal, The Law of Evidence, Central Law Agency.

RV Kelkar’s, Criminal Procedure 6th edn., EBC.

Apar Gupta: Commentary on Information Technology Act, 3rd edn., 2016.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Information Technology Act, 2000.

Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.

The Constitution of India.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

1. Akansha is the executive manager of the company named K.S.

4. She approached Sunil (Owner of T.V. shop).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

8. She lodge a complaint to the police.

9. Investigation by police of Akansha’s bedroom was unresolved.

14. The police found a camera installed inside her TV.

17. Mr Sunil sent Akansha’s photos to Sameer.

18. Sameer further sent Akansha’s photos to Anil.

20. Charges framed against all accused.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

SECTION 66E, AND 67A OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000?

3. WHETHER ACCUSED SUNIL (A1) ENTITLED FOR BAIL?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

SECTION 66E, AND 67A OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000?

3. WHETHER ACCUSED SUNIL (A1) ENTITLED FOR BAIL?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Sunil hereinafter referred to as A1, i.e., Accused no. 1