IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO. ________2024

IN THE MATTER OF:-

RAJESH GOGNA …APPLICANT/PETITIONER

VERSUS

State (NCT of Delhi) …RESPONDENT

MEMO OF PARTIES

Rajesh Gogna,
S/o, Rajkumar Gogna
R/o. L2-805, Bramha Suncity
Wadgaonsheri, Pune 411014
Maharashtra ….Applicant/Petitioner

Versus

State (NCT of Delhi) …Respondent

AVINASH MISHRA, ADVOCATE

CHAMBER NO. 727, D BLOCK,
SUPREME COURT ADDITIONAL
BUILDING,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-110001
Email: avilawyer@gmail.com
Mobile No.9540616816
PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATED: .04.2024
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO. ________2024

IN THE MATTER OF:-

RAJESH GOGNA …APPLICANT/PETITIONER

VERSUS

State (NCT of Delhi) …RESPONDENT

F.I.R NO.0046/2024

PS: - VASANT VIHAR

U/S: 506 IPC & 25 ARMS ACT

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SECTION

438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

1. That the applicant is constrained to approach this Hon’ble

court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with F.I.R
bearing No. 0046/2024, P.S- Vasant Vihar dated
15.03.2024 u/s 506 IPC and 25 Arms Act.

2. That the Petitioner is a respectable citizen having deep

roots in the society and has clean antecedents. It is stated
that Petitioner is employee of Raymond Group of
Companies and has got no prior criminal records and he
 has been wrongly implicated in the present case by the
Complainant.

3. That the facts stated in the Complaint does not constitute

any cognizable offences committed by the Petitioner at all.

4. That the present petition is being filed by the petitioner on

account of the reason that an F.I.R bearing No.
0046/2024, P.S- Vasant Vihar dated 15.03.2024 u/s 506
IPC and 25 Arms Act has been registered, at the behest of
the complainant Deepak Sateeja, wherein unknown
persons have been made accused. Copy of the said F.I.R
bearing No. 0046/2024 is annexed herewith as Annexure
P-1.

5. That pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid F.I.R

bearing No. 0046/2024, the prosecuting agency has
arrested one person who is unknown to the petitioner and
on the disclosure statement of that person (the petitioner is
even not aware of the person) and in collusion and on
behest of the complainant, the prosecuting agency has
raided the residence of the petitioner at Pune in the
midnight (around 02:30 AM) of 20.03.2024 to arrest the
petitioner without following the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar Vs State
Of Bihar & Anr.

6. That since 20.03.2024 i.e. just after 4 days of the

registering the F.I.R and without giving any notice under
 Section 41A Cr.P.C, the prosecuting agency has been
threatening the petitioner of arrest without following the
established procedure of law even when the petitioner is
ready to cooperate in the investigation as per law.

7. The prosecuting agency has also called the wife of the

petitioner and threatened her of the severe consequences.
The petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested in the
present case.

8. That the prosecuting agency failed to appreciate the

established law that the disclosure statement has no
evidentiary value and there are plethora of judgments of
the Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court
on this issue.

9. The petitioner's name is not mentioned in the present

F.I.R, and he is being unjustly harassed by the prosecuting
agency based on the disclosure statement.

10. It is submitted that petitioner has nothing to do with this

case. He does not know the person arrested nor is familiar
with his disclosure statement. The petitioner has never
interacted with or engaged in any activities involving the
arrested individual. He is in no way involved with the
alleged offence and has been wrongfully implicated by the
prosecuting agency at the behest of the complainant.
11. The petitioner is unaware of the so-called threatening letter
and two cartridges mentioned in the FIR.

12. The petitioner and the complainant are entangled in civil

disputes concerning business transactions. The
complainant has repeatedly threatened the petitioner, both
via phone calls and WhatsApp messages, warning of severe
repercussions if their demands are not met. These disputes
have persisted for the last three months, during which the
complainant fabricated a flimsy narrative in collusion with
antisocial elements. This fabricated story led to the
registration of the F.I.R without specifying any names,
followed by a disclosure from the arrested individual aimed
at extorting money from the petitioner. Copies of the
WhatsApp communications between the petitioner, his
family members, and the complainant are attached as
Annexure P-2.

13. That the fact remains that the petitioner has nothing to do
with this case. The petitioner is completely unknown to the
person arrested and his disclosure statement. The
petitioner has never met or engaged in any activities with
the arrested person. The petitioner is not at all involved or
anything to do with the alleged offence and has been
falsely implicated by the prosecuting agency on the behest
of the complainant.

14. That however a bare perusal of the instant F.I.R. would

itself reveal that even as per the averments in the said
 F.I.R., the petitioner has no role to play regarding the
alleged incident. It would be pertinent to mention here that
on a bare perusal of the F.I.R, the conspiracy hatched by
the complainant could be understood that the so-called red
colour bag were kept lying from 13.03.2024 to 14.03.2024
i.e for two days and also till 11 AM of the 15.03.2024
morning and the complainant knowingly kept it lying to
make his case and did not inform the police immediately
and suddenly on 15th March, his wisdom awake and
informed the police. And also suddenly one person was
arrested and he made a disclosure on the behest of the
complainant against the petitioner.

15. It is submitted that in view of the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Joginder
Kumar, the Petitioner cannot be arrested till any sort of
credible material is found against him by the investigating
agency.

16. That the guide lines issued in the judgement of the

Hon’ble Supreme court in Satendra Antil squarely apply to
present case as the Hon’ble Supreme court in said case
(2023 SCC online SC542) in para 11 clarify that guideline
qua bail enunciated would equally apply to anticipatory
bail cases.

17. It is stated that the petitioner is a very dignified and

reputed person and living in Pune region and there is no
 chance of the petitioner absconding or tempering with the
evidence in any manner.

18. It is stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

various decisions had observed that arrest is not to be
resorted to merely because it is legal to arrest but there
should be circumstances on record, making arrest
imperative in public interest, in fact the Third Police
Commission in its report has recommended that the power
of arrest should be restricted to grave offences or where the
accused is likely to abscond, is given to violent behavior or
is a habitual offender.

19. It is stated that it is a settled legal position by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India and this Hon’ble Court along with
various Hon’ble High Courts that if investigation can be
completed without custodial interrogation the arrest of the
accused is not required. It has also been held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the power of arrest
and the necessity of arrest are two different things. The
resort to arrest should be the last option to be exercised by
the Investigating Agency.

20. It is stated that the petitioner is a permanent resident and

there are no chances of him absconding from the course of
justice.

21. It is stated that the petitioner undertakes to abide by all

the terms and conditions of bail as may be imposed by this
 Hon’ble Court and further undertakes to abide by all the
orders of this Hon’ble Court.

22. It is stated that the petitioner undertakes to appear as and

when directed by this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner had

already joined the Investigation and is cooperating with the

Investigating Agency.

23. It is stated the petitioner further undertakes not to tamper

with the evidence or the witnesses in any manner nor shall

he leave India without prior permission of the Hon’ble

Court.

24. Moreover this fact has been repeatedly explained to the

investigating Officer, however, despite understanding the

entire sequence of events, the investigation officer is hell

bent upon harassing the petitioner.

25. That the fact remains that the petitioner is absolutely

unaware of the alleged incident and also never visited the

house of the complainant or any arrested person.

26. That the petitioner is not a previous convict and is a

person with clean antecedents and is ready to cooperate in

the investigation.

27. That the petitioner undertakes to abide by all the terms

that this Hon’ble Court may impose upon the petitioner

while granting anticipatory bail.

28. That the petitioner has not filed any other petition either

seeking anticipatory bail or otherwise before this Hon’ble

Court or before any other Court and this is the first

application seeking anticipatory bail, being filed before this

Hon’ble Court in the F.I.R bearing no. 0046/2024.

29. That the petitioner seeks the kind permission of this

Hon’ble Court to raise such further grounds as available to

the petitioner during the hearing of the present petition.

PRAYER

In view of the above-stated, it is therefore most

respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court under the facts

 and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice,

may most graciously be pleased to:-

(i) allow the present application.

(ii) grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with a

direction that in the event of arrest of the

petitioner, the petitioner be released on bail.

(iii) grant interim protection from arrest till the

final outcome of the present bail application

(iv) Pass any other further order(s) or direction(s)

which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and

proper under the facts and circumstances of

the present case.

Through Counsel

AVINASH MISHRA, ADVOCATE

CHAMBER NO. 727, D BLOCK,
SUPREME COURT ADDITIONAL
BUILDING,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-110001
Email: avilawyer@gmail.com
Mobile No.9540616816
PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATED: 02.04.2024
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO. ________2024

IN THE MATTER OF:-

RAJESH GOGNA …APPLICANT/PETITIONER

VERSUS

State (NCT of Delhi) …RESPONDENT

INDEX

S. PARTICULARS PAGES

NO.

1. Memo of parties

2. Petition under Section 438 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking

anticipatory bail

3. Annexure P-1: Copy of the F.I.R bearing

no. 0046/2024 dated 15.03.2024.

4 Annexure P-2: Copy of the WhatssApp

communications between the petitioner and

the complainant
5 Vakalatnama

Through Counsel

AVINASH MISHRA, ADVOCATE

CHAMBER NO. 727, D BLOCK,
SUPREME COURT ADDITIONAL
BUILDING,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NEW DELHI-110001
Email: avilawyer@gmail.com
Mobile No.9540616816
PLACE: NEW DELHI
DATED: .04.2024