1

__________________________________________________________________________

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

INDIANA
(Under Section 136 of Constitution of Indiana)
_________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTERS OF:

Rohan Mehra
……………..Appellant
--VS--

State of UP (Riya Sing )

…………..RESPONDENT

MOOT COURT MEMORIAL FOR PRACTICAL TRAINING-V{ 2024}

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2

Table of Contents
LIST OF
ABBRIVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………
………….………..3

INDEX AND
AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………………………………
……….……..4

BOOKS AND
STATUTES………………………………………………………………………………………………
…….………….5

STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………………………………………
………….6

SATATEMENTS OF
FACTS……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………..7

STATEMENTS OF
ISSUES…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………..9

SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………………………………………
…………..10

STATEMENTS IN
ADVANCE………………………………………………………………………………………………
………….12

ISSUES 1: Whether The special leave petition is Maintainable in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Indiana.

ISSUES 2: Whether the agreement entered into by Rohan and Riya on Whatapp amounts
to a valid contract recognizable by laws in Indiana?

ISSUES 3: Whether the consent for sexual intercourse was given by Riyaq only the pretext
marriage and does it amount to rape under section 375 of Indiana Penal Code.

ISSUES 4: Whether a denial of Bail for Rohan for the purpose of his marriage would amount
to an infringement of his fundamental right under the Constitution of Indiana?

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………26

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATONS

1. Art.:- Article

2. COA:- Constitution of Indiana

3. Govt :- Government

4. IPC:- Indiana Penal Code

5. IEA:- Indiana Evidence Act

6. Sec:- Section

7. No. :- Number

8. & :- and

9. SC :- Supreme court

10. HC:- High Court

11. UP:- Uttar Pradesh

12. SLP:- Special Leave Petition

13.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:
State Of UP vs. Hari Ram and Ors
Ramesh Chand vs. State of UP
State of U.P. vs Anil Singh
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v State of Maharashtra
State of U.P. v. Naushad
Pradeep Kumar v. State of Bihar
Yedla Srinivasa Rao vs State Of A.P
Dhannu Lal v. Ganeshram 2015 AIR SCW 2839

WWW.theindianlawyer.in

www.livelaw.in.

www.scconline.in.

www.manupatra.in.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 5

BOOKS AND STATUTES

1.THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
2.THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
3.INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
4.CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
5.INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTON
The petitioner herein is Mr. Masab Khan. Under Art. 136 of
the Constitution of Indus,1950, this Hon’ble Court has been
vested, with the discretion, to grant special leave to appeal
from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or
tribunal in the territory of Indiana. In this case, the petitioner
has preferred an appeal against the impugned orders of the
Hon’ble High Court of Indiana. The present memorandum
sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the
present case.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mehra is a 28- year old entrepreneur. He completed his MBA in

marketing from the Indiana Institute of Management in batch 2017-
2019 in Tucknow, Uttar Pradesh. And Riya Singh also completed her
education in the same Institute in same batch 17- 18.
2. After competition of graduation Rohan went to Francis to learn the
art of perfumery. After come back he started own perfume company
in the name of “Scents” which is built a good reputation in market in
very short time. And Riya got a campus placement in TCJ where she
working as a software development.
3. In their time in graduation, both were do many class projects, work
together. In between they make a strong feeling and both confessed
their love to each other on 10th March 2018.
4. That their love intact even Rohan went to Fransics for study in 2019.
They used to have long voice calls, messages, video calls over a year.
After Rohan come back to Indiana their relationship became more
stronger in physically and emotionally.
5. Rohan used to take Riya every functions and gathering , on 20th
November 2022 in his brother’s marriage Rohan take and met Riya to
his family and introduce his mother after meeting Rohan mother ask
them when you will make similar function for them? Where Rohan did
not respond and Riya was said ” Soon”
6. And same also Rohan met Riya to his friends and bring their
relationship social circle as well. In a party Rohan drunk state his
married friends Rishi and Radha asked about future of their
relationship, where Rohan replied ‘Riya Will make a perfect wife’. The
same was asked by Radha to Riya without the consent or knowledge
of Rohan.
7. Rohan and Riya started living relationship. He pitched to Riya for
working together his perfume company “ Scents” as a developer an
app where they can sell their products directly without involving to
amacon, flipmart or other shopping app. Riya like the idea and started
work for his company but iterated that she would not quit her job.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 8

8. That they are in relationship for which there is no formal written

contract was not executed between them but the entire agreement
was based on whatapp messages where as on 13th May 2023 both are
agreed Riya will get lumpsum amount Rs 10 lacs, however the time
and modes was not clearly defined.
9. That the work progressed, parties are disagreements the
development application with Rohan claiming for Riya to projects
were left as she was not able to balance her job with application work
at the same time.
10. That the consequences of the same he denied to payment which is
promised in whatapp chats on the ground deficiency in service
rendered it annoying to her but he calm down so that their
relationship was not affected. and
11. That after Riya asked for marry but Rohan denied and she feeling
mentally emotionally distressed filed an FIR alleging that Rohan had
sexual intercourse in the pretext of marriage, and now he refusing to
marry her. Rohan also denied his promise as well whereas Riya
contends that an implied promise was made by him and she gave her
consent of sexual intercourse in the pretext of marriage.
12. That There after medical examination was performed and report
showing Rohan and Riya do sexual intercourse took place frequently.
13. That Rohan was arrested and present before the magistrate.
14. That he was denied for bail later acquitted for charges by trial in court
of Tucknow. And the court decided that Rohan and Riya both
consensual relationship, and he cannot held liable for Rape.
15. Then thereafter Riya appeal against the trail court’s order in High
Court Ultra Pradesh. High court convicted Rohan for the charge of
Rape on the pretext of marriage. Rohan the filed special leave petition
in Supreme court of Indiana.
16. That Rohan asked take consideration that his family has been looking
for marriage in jeevansathi.com thus, he and she decided for marriage
and his fundamental right enshrined by the constitution of Indianan.
However, Riya also filed for breach of contract which is Rohan
contends whatapp chat does not a valid contract.
That Rohan also challenged the constitution validity of section 375 of
Indiana Penal Code. Only women can file case on pretext for marriage and it
is not available.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 9

STATEMENT OF ISSUES:

ISSUES 1: Whether The special leave petition is Maintainable in the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiana.

ISSUES 2: Whether the agreement entered into by Rohan and Riya

on Whatapp amounts to a valid contract recognizable by laws in
Indiana?

ISSUES 3: Whether the consent for sexual intercourse was given by

Riyaq only the pretext marriage and does it amount to rape under
section 375 of Indiana Penal Code.

ISSUES 4: Whether a denial of Bail for Rohan for the purpose of his
marriage would amount to an infringement of his fundamental right
under the Constitution of Indiana?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 10

SUMMARY ARGUMENT

Issue 1.
Whether the Special Leave Petition is Mainta
i n a b l e i n t h e H o n ’ b l e Supreme Court of Indiana.
The counsel for therespondent humbly submits
t h a t t h e S p e c i a l L e a v e P e t i t i o n i s maintainable in the
Supreme Court of Indiana.

Issue 2.
Whether the agreement entered into by Rohan and
Riya on WhatApp amounts to a valid contract
recognizable by laws in Indiana?
The counsel for the respondent humbly prayed that the
agreement entered into by Rohan and Riya on whatapp it
amounts to a valid contract recognizable by laws in Indiana.

Issue 3.
Whether the consent for sexual intercourse was given
by Riya only the pretext of marriage and does it
amount to rape under Section 375 of Indiana Penal
Code.
The counsel for respondent humbly prayed that the consent
for sexual intercourse was given by Riya is only the pretext of
marriage and it amount to rape under section 375 of Indian
Penal Code.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 11

Issue 4.
Whether a denial of bail for Rohan for the
p u r p o s e o f h i s m a r r i a g e would amount to an
infringement of his fundamental right under the
Constitution of Indiana?
The counsel for the respondent humbly submits that the denial
of bail for the purpose of his marriage wouldn’t amount to
an infringement of his fundamental right which is given
under the constitution.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 12

STATEMENT IN ADVANCE

ISSUES 1:-
Whether the Special Leave Petition is Mainta
i n a b l e i n t h e H o n ’ b l e Supreme Court of Indiana.

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court:-

1)Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the

Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special
leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or
matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the
territory of India.
(2)Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment,
determination, sentence or order passed or made by
any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law
relating to the Armed Forces.

In decided cases, however, establish that the Supreme Court will

grant Special Leave in to appeal in exceptional cases like:-
Where grave substantial injustice has been done by disregards to
the forms of legal process, or violation of the principles of natural
justice or otherwise.
It may noted by this Learned Supreme Court that here in this case
there is no grave injustice and ignorance for substantial question
of law . The decision given by the High Court is totally based upon
law without ignoring any substile question of law.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 13

Normally the supreme court does not interfere with an order of

acquittal passed by the High Court if two views of evidence is
possible.
In case of State of Andra Pradesh vs. Anjaneyulu on 2 November,
1982, it was held that:
“We do not ordinarily entertain appeals against orders of acquittal
if two views of the evidence are possible. On a perusal of the trial
court and the High Court we are unable to say that the High Court
has taken unreasonable view of the evidence. The special leave
petition is therefore dismissed on merits and because the state has
desired to withdraw the same.”
In this case also, High Court has examined all the evidence very
carefully and then acquitted the said accused.
However, the order may be set aside on the basis of the following
ground ;-
a) If the High Court has mislead the evidence and has
reversed the judgment of the sessions judge without
displacing important conclusion arrived at by the session
judge or,

In case of State Of UP vs. Hari Ram and Ors

It was contended as following:-
“The High Court has committee serious errors of law in
appreciating and marshalling the evidence and basing its
conclusions more on speculation that the evidence led before the
trial court. On a careful consideration and detailed review of the
evidence and circumstances of the case we are fully satisfied that
there is no good reason to disbelieve the testimony of PWs. 1,2 and
3 particularly when the evidence of PWs. 1and 3 was fully

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 14

corroborated by PW2 who was doubtless an independent witness

and whose evidence did not suffer from any manifest defect. We,
therefore, fully believe the testimony of the eyewitness and hold
that from the evidence on record the prosecution case has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the order acquittal passed
by the High Court was wrong on appoint of law which is sufficient
to warrant our interference. In these circumstances, it is
impossible to sustain the judgment of the High Court .We,
therefore, allow appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court.”
It may be noted by this learned Court that in this case the
judgment is not given under any speculation or conjectures as it
has verified all the facts. The prosecution itself doesn’t have
sufficient evidence to prove the conviction of the accused. The
decision of the High Court is fully based on sound reasoning.
a) If the evidence does not justify conviction
I n case of Ramesh Chand vs. State of UP it was
contented by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:-

“ Ordinarily this court does not enter into re-appreciation of

evidence but where evidence is placed and the conviction appears
to the Court be not justified in law, nothing stands in the way
directing reversal conviction. We allow the appeal, set aside the
conviction of the SLP filed by the petitioner.

In the present case also, the evidence presented by the appellant

don’t justify the conviction of the respondent and hence the
learned Supreme Court may set aside the SLP filled by the
petitioner.
b) If the acquittal is perverse in the sense that no
reasonable person would have come to that

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 15

conclusion, or if the acquittal is manifestly illegal

or grossly unjust.
In case of State of U.P. vs Anil Singh:-
“ The scope of appeals under article 136 to review is undisputedly
very limited. This court does not exercise its overriding powers of
article136 to review the evidence. Even if two views are reasonably
possible, one indicating conviction and other acquittal, this court
will not interfere with order of acquittal. But the court will not
hesitate to interfere if the acquittal is perverse in the sense that no
reasonable person would be come to that conclusion, or the
acquittal is manifestly illegal grossly unjust.”
In this case the acquittal by High Court is not perverse and hence
the petition must be dismissed.

• The decision delivered by the High Court is based on

evidence and witnesses, There is no such direct and even
circumstantial evidence by which she can prove that there
was a gross injustice or that the High Court has ignored the
substantial question of law. The decision is just and
equitable. Thers is no need to rise a question over the said
decision of the High Court.

Issue 2.
Whether the agreement entered by R
o h a n a n d R i y a o n W h a t A p p amounts to a
valid contract recognizable by laws in Indiana?

The counsel addressing the issue of validity of

contract upon the social media platform Whatapp
has points to argue that: I. Whether legally enforceable

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 16

contract can be formed over electronic medium?

II. Does electronic conversation have evidentiary value?

2.1 CONTRACTS FORMED OVER ELECTRONIC MEDI

UM ARELEGALLY ENFORCEABLE AND BINDING OVER
THE PARTY ATFAULT

2.1.1Contracts executed through electronic

methods, such as WhatsApp, SMS, or email are
valid and binding in India, if such contracts fulfil
the requirements under the Indian Contract Act,
1872 (“Contract Act”).
2.1.2As per the Contract Act a valid and
legally binding contract must have a proposal
,acceptance
2
of such offer, be for legal consideration, and it
should in “
consensus ad idem”
.3
2.1.3Validity of such electronic agreements is
further enforced through Section 10A which
state
“Where in a contract formation, the communicatio
n of proposals, theacceptance of proposals, the
revocation of proposals and acceptances, as the case may be,
are expressed in electronic form or by means of
an electronic records, such contract shall not be deemed
to be unenforceable solely on the ground that such
electronic form or means was used for that purpose"
of

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 17

the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”)

and Section 85A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
states0
TheCourt shall presume that every electronic re
cord purporting to be an agreementcontaining the
digital signatures of the parties was so concluded by
affixing the digital signature of the parties. The IT Act
does not mandate the need for a physical copy of the
agreement to be executed unless such a term is
a mandatory provision of the agreement for it to
attain validity.2 . 1 . 4 H o w e v e r , t h e r e
are certain caveats on the validity
o f t r a n s a c t i o n s a n d d o c u m e n t s regarding
subject matters under the First Schedule of the IT Act.
1
Section 2(a) of the Indian Contract act 1872, “When one person signifies to another his willingness to
do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act
or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal”
2

Section13 and section 14 of the Indian Contract Act,1872

3

Section 2(b) of the Indian Contract act 1872, “When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies
his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted”.

ISSUES 3-
Whether the consent for sexual intercourse was given
by Riya only the pretext of marriage and does it
amount to rape under Section 375 of Indiana Penal
Code.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 18

That in common parlance, consent is an act done deliberately

and by free will.3.1.2That in the context of rape,
consent is required because a sexual penetration is
a prima facie wrong.
4

It involves the use of force against a body and involves risks

to the other person.3.1.3That According to Section 90
of Indiana penal code if consent for
sexual activityw a s o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h f e a r o f h a r m
o r b a s e d o n a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e circumstanc
es (such as promises of marriage), it is not legally valid
consent
under the Indiana Penal Code. Therefore, any sexual
activity conducted under suchcircumstances could
potentially constitute an offense under relevant provisions
of the law.3 . 1 . 4 T h a t a p l a i n r e a d i n g
of the words ‘misconception of fact’ is
b r o a d e n o u g h t o encompass all kinds of cases where
consent is obtained by misrepresentation.
5
3.1.5That in
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v State of Maharashtra
6
, the Supreme Court of India explained the legal principle as
follows: The ‘consent’ of a woman with respect to
Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned
deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish
whether the ‘consent’ was vitiated by a ‘misconception
of fact’ arising out of a promise to
_________________
4
Jonathan Herring and Michelle Madden Dempsey, Why Sexual Penetration Requires Justification, 27 OxfordJournal Of Legal Studies 467
(2007).
5

6
N. Jaladu, In re 1911 SCC OnLine Mad 3: AIR 1914 Mad 49

AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 4010

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 19

marry, two propositions must be established. The

promise of marriage musthave been a false promise,
given in bad faith and with no intention of
beinga d h e r e d t o a t t h e t i m e i t w a s g i v e n . T h e
f a l s e p r o m i s e i t s e l f m u s t b e o f immediate relevance,
or bear a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engagein
sexual act.
7
3.1.6T h a t i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a d r
e c e i v e d t h e c o n s e n t f o r s e x u a l intercourse with th
e respondent after the misconception of facts i.e. i
mplied promise of marriage and never had the intention to m
arry her. Following facts of cases clearly states that there was
an implied promise of marriage by the petitioner and no
intention of marriage :
A.
That as per the Para 3 of the statement of facts
petitioner used to take the respondent to all the social
gatherings and functions. Especially on the night
of November 20, 2022, the petitioner took the respondent to h
is brother’smarriage, where she met petitioner’s family
and relatives. When petitioner introduced respondent to his
mother, after meeting respondent, she asked both of them,
“When will you two throw a similar function for us?”
Listening to the question, the petitioner and respondent looked
at each other and smiled. That indicates that the respondent
believed that one day they will also marry
and petitioner’s smile on that question also strengthen the
belief.
B.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 20

That as per the Para 5 of the statement of facts the

petitioner and respondent started living together. A girl
usually lived in the live in relationship presumes that there is
an implied promise of marry by their partner and they
will marry one day. Even The
Supreme Court decided the couples living in live-in
relationships will be presumed legally married.
8
B u t t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e petitioner was to convince the
respondent to

work with him in his perfume company ‘Scents’ and to

have sexual intercourse with the Respondent on the
misconception of the facts.
C.
That as per the Para 6 of the statement of facts Rohan’s
denial to marry and calling off the relationship
immediate after the discussion of payment. This shows
that the petitioner had used the respondent for his sexual
needs and work. The petitioner had not any intention to
marry her.
____________________
7
(2019) 9 SCC 608 [18]
8

Dhannu Lal v. Ganeshram 2015 AIR SCW 2839

3.2SEXUAL INTERCOURSE DONE IN PRETEXT OF

MARRIAGE AMOUNTS TORAPE
3.2.1That the Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code
provides that consent given under a misconception of fact
is no consent.3.2.2T h a t i n p r o m i s e t o m a r r y c a s e s ,
the false promise of marriage is deemed a
misconception of fact. Even though the sexual intercourse
was, per se, consensual but under a misconception of

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 21

marriage, it falls within the definition of rape.3.2.3That in

the case of
Yedla Srinivasa Rao vs State Of A.P
9
,The Supreme Court observed that clearly the girl
had sexual intercourse with the accused on
the promise made by the accused that he would marry her.
The conduct of the accused fell under the offence of
rape.3 . 2 . 4 T h a t i n t h e c a s e o f
Pradeep Kumar v. State of Bihar
10
, i t w a s h e l d b y t h e Supreme Court that the term
‘misconception of fact’ defined under Section 90 of IPC
is broad enough to include all cases pertaining to
misrepresentation of facts, deceit, fraud etc reference
to which consent is given. Section 3 of the Indiana
Evidence Act, 1872 also provides for intention to be treated as
fact.
11
3.2.5That in a case for rape under Section 375 of IPC,
where the sexual intercourse bythe accused is proved and
the question comes before the court of law that
whether consent was given by the prosecutrix or not, and she
states in her evidence that shedid not give consent for the act,
then the court shall presume that the act was done without the
consent of the victim.
12
3.2.6That in the

State of U.P. v. Naushad

13
the court held that the accused shall be convicted
under Section 375 of IPC as sexual intercourse on false

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 22

promise to marry would amount to ‘without consent’

within the description ‘secondly’ of Section375 of IPC.
14
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the
High Court and convicted the accused for the offence of
rape under Section 376 of the IPC.3.2.7That in this case as
per the facts the petitioner clearly deceived and cheated
the respondent and took the consent for sexual intercourse on
the belief that he would marry her. Thus it is a clear case of
misconception and misrepresentation of facts.
_____________________
9
AIRONLINE 2006 SC 40
10

AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 3059

11

India Evidence Act 1872

12

Section 114A of the Indian evidence Act,1872

13

AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 384

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 23

ISSUES 4:
Whether a denial of bail for Rohan for the
p u r p o s e o f h i s m a r r i a g e would amount to an
infringement of his fundamental right under the
Constitution of Indiana?

Rape is a heinous crime that inflicts severe physical, emotional, and

psychological trauma on the victim. In recent years, India has
witnessed a growing awareness about the importance of swift and
stringent actions against sexual offenders. The country’s legal
system has been continuously evolving to ensure better protection
for victims and stricter punishment for perpetrators.

The issue of bail in rape cases is highly contentious and often stirs
public debate. Bail is the temporary release of an accused person
from custody while awaiting trial or resolution of the case. In rape
cases, granting bail is a delicate matter that demands a careful
balance between the accused’s right to personal liberty and the
protection of society and the victim’s rights.

Presumption of Innocence- Under Indian law, every accused person

is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This fundamental
principle underscores the right to bail in rape case, which is
considered an extension of the right to personal liberty enshrined in
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 24

Bail Provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)- Section 437

and Section 439 of the CrPC deal with the provisions of bail in
criminal cases. While Section 437 grants bail to an accused in non-
bailable offenses if certain conditions are fulfilled, Section 439
empowers the High Court and Sessions Court to grant bail to any
person accused of any offense.

Stringent Bail Provisions in Rape Cases- Recognizing the severity of

rape crimes and the vulnerability of the victims, courts are cautious
in granting bail in rape cases. The law ensures that the accused
does not misuse bail to tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses,
or pose a threat to the victim.

In the legal landscape of Delhi, Advocate Aman Chawla stands out as

a proficient and the best lawyer in Delhi with extensive
experience in handling complex criminal cases, including rape cases.
His commitment to upholding justice and defending the rights of his
clients has earned him accolades and recognition among his peers
and clients.

Advocate Aman Chawla’s profound knowledge and expertise in

criminal law enable him to navigate the intricacies of bail
proceedings in rape cases. He is well-versed in the relevant
provisions of the CrPC and is adept at presenting compelling
arguments to secure bail in rape case for his clients.

Cases involving sexual offenses require a high level of sensitivity and

empathy towards the survivor. Advocate Aman Chawla is the best

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 25

Bail lawyer in Delhi known for his compassionate approach

towards his clients, ensuring that they receive the support they need
during the legal process. He leaves no stone unturned in gathering
relevant evidence, identifying witnesses, and building a strong
defense strategy to present before the court during bail proceedings.

His courtroom presence is commendable, exuding confidence and

persuasiveness in his arguments. His exceptional advocacy skills
have resulted in several successful outcomes for his clients facing
serious charges.

Conclusion

Recent judgments in rape cases in India have reflected the

judiciary’s commitment to upholding justice and protecting the
rights of victims. Bail in rape cases remains a complex issue, with
courts diligently balancing the rights of the accused with the
interests of justice and the safety of society. Advocate Aman Chawla,
renowned for his expertise in criminal law, serves as a beacon of
hope for individuals seeking legal representation in bail proceedings
related to rape cases. His compassionate approach, extensive legal
knowledge, and proficient courtroom presence make him an
excellent choice for individuals facing such serious allegations. As
India continues to strive for a just and equitable society, expert legal
guidance remains a critical factor in securing the rights of both
victims and the accused in rape cases.
_________________
The matrimonial lawyers website.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 26

PRAYER

Therefore, in the lights of facts stated, issued raised, argument advanced

and authority sited, the Respondent humbly submits the Hon’ble Court be
pleased and declare that,

Declare that The special leave petition is Maintainable in the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Declare that the agreement entered into by Rohan and Riya on Whatapp
amounts to a valid contract recognizable by laws in Indiana

Declare that the consent for sexual intercourse was given by Riyaq only the
pretext marriage and it amount to rape under section 375 of Indiana Penal
Code.

Declare that the denial of Bail for Rohan for the purpose of his marriage
would not amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under the
Constitution of Indiana.
And pass any order decree, judgment, is this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in
the light of justice, equality and good consequence.
For this act of kindness, Appellant should be duty to bound forever pray.

Respectfully submitted,

30 April 2024

Counsel for the Respondent

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 27

ANDAMAN LAW COLLEGE

Name:- Dipaniwta Halder

Reg. No. :- 19LF05
Class:- Vth year
Subject:- Practical Training-V

FACULTY SIGNATURE PRINCIPAL SIGNATURE

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT