Name -

Roll No -

Class -

Professor -

MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

Before
THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT

UNDER ARTICLE 32 R/W SECTION 439,482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, 1973

IN THE MATTER OF

Lalit, Jashn & Ors. …(Petitioners)

Versus

State of U.P & Ors. ...(Respondents)

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

1
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... I

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................... III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................IV

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS ............................................................................................................ V

ISSUES RAISED ................................................................................................................... VII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .......................................................................................... VIII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................... 1

ISSUE 1: WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?. ....................................................................................... 1

ISSUE 2: WHETHER GRANT OF POLICE CUSTODY BEYOND 15 DAYS IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID IN ABSENCE OF ANY SAFEGUARDS IN THE
SECTION?. ............................................................................................................................ 4

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE FIR SHOULD BE QUASHED?. ............................................. 7

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IN BOTH THE CASES BE RELEASED ON

BAIL ?. ................................................................................................................................ 10

PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 13

PAGE | I
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION ACTUAL TERM

& And

Anr. Another

Art. Article

cl. Clause

GOI Government of India

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

No. Number

Ors. Others

S. Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

PAGE | II
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTORY COMPILATION

1. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. Constitution of India, 1949

WEBSITES

1. http://www.judis.nic.in

2. http://www.manupatra.com

3. http://www.supremecourtcaselaw.com

5. https://indiankanoon.org

CASE LAWS:

1. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75

2. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241
3. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684
4. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600
5. Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni [(1992) 3 SCC 141]
6. State v. Dharampal 21 (1982) DLT 50
7. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)
8. Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana AIR 2013 SC (CRIMINAL) 1389
9. State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma 1992 SCC(CRI) 192
10. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal [(2015) 7 SCC 681]
11. Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2013) 9 SCC 293]
12. State of Maharashtra v. Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle [(2009) 11 SCC 541]
13. Gurucharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) 1978 AIR 179

PAGE | III
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel most humbly and respectfully, submits that this Hon'ble Court has the requisite
subject matter jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this matter.

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1)The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.(2)The Supreme Court shall have power to
issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of
any of the rights conferred by this Part.(3)Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the
Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to
exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the
Supreme Court under clause (2).(4)The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended
except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.

(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct -(a)that any person accused of an offence
and in custody, be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section
(3) of Section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes
mentioned in that sub-section;

482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.

- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High
Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or
to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

PAGE | IV
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Lalita and Lalit's Relationship:

 Lalita and Lalit, both from Uttar Pradesh, met during their college days in Mumbai
and started a romantic relationship in March 2019.
 They continued their relationship after college, with Lalit moving to Bengaluru for
work and Lalita returning to Lucknow.

Lalita's Family and Marriage Proposals:

 Lalita's father, an influential figure, began searching for marriage proposals for her in
June 2023.
 Lalita asked Lalit to discuss marriage with her father, leading to tensions due to Lalit's
conversion to Christianity.

Engagement and Discovery of Another Engagement:

 Lalita and Lalit got engaged on June 15, 2024, despite her father's disapproval.
 Lalita later discovered that Lalit had gotten engaged to another woman, Laila, on June
27, 2024.

Legal Action and FIR:

 On July 1, 2024, Lalita filed an FIR against Lalit under various sections of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, accusing him of deceit and rape.
 Lalit was arrested on July 2, 2024, and after several legal proceedings, he was granted
and then denied bail due to allegations of criminal intimidation.

Further Investigations and Police Remand:

 Lalit was re-arrested on July 11, 2024, and police custody was extended on July 18,
2024, due to new evidence found on his computer.
 Lalit challenged this extension, claiming it was illegal under Section 167(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

PAGE | V
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

Constitutional Challenge:

 A society challenged the constitutionality of Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023, alleging it was biased against men.

Another Case Involving Jashn:

 Jashn, a government officer, was involved in a marital dispute with his wife, Veni,
who accused him of cruelty and corruption.
 Jashn was arrested, denied bail, and later sought to challenge the legality of his
remand, alleging his wife's influence and false allegations.
 Jashn filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, citing his wife's superior attitude and
false accusations.

High Court Action:

 The High Court has clubbed all these matters together for consideration.

PAGE | VI
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I: Whether section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

constitutionally valid?

ISSUE II: Whether grant of police custody beyond 15 days is constitutionally

valid in absence of any safeguards in the section?

ISSUE III: Whether the FIR should be quashed?

ISSUE IV: Whether the accused in both the cases be released on bail ?

PAGE | VII
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

It is Contend that Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, criminalizes deceitful
promises of marriage leading to sexual intercourse, aiming to protect individuals from
exploitation. The provision is constitutionally valid, aligning with Article 14's principle of
equality, as it addresses a legitimate state interest without gender bias. The punishment
reflects the seriousness of the offense and serves as a deterrent against fraudulent conduct.
Legal precedents support the provision's objective of justice and protection. Arguments
against its constitutionality, based on potential misuse, are insufficient to invalidate a law
designed to prevent exploitation and uphold fairness.

ISSUE II: WHETHER GRANT OF POLICE CUSTODY BEYOND 15 DAYS IS CONSTITUTIONALLY

VALID IN ABSENCE OF ANY SAFEGUARDS IN THE SECTION?

It is Contend that the extension of police custody beyond 15 days in the cases of Lalit and
Jashn is constitutionally valid, grounded in new, substantial evidence necessitating further
investigation. Section 167(2) of the CrPC allows for such extensions in complex cases, with
judicial oversight ensuring balance between individual rights and effective law enforcement.
The Supreme Court’s precedents support extending custody when required for thorough
investigation. The actions follow due legal procedures, safeguarding both the integrity of the
investigation and the accused's rights. Denying these extensions could impede justice and
undermine the rule of law. The extensions should be upheld as necessary and lawful.

PAGE | VIII
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

ISSUE III: WHETHER THE FIR SHOULD BE QUASHED?

It is Contend that the FIRs against Lalit and Jashn are prima facie valid and supported by
sufficient evidence, disclosing cognizable offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS). The Supreme Court has held that an FIR should not be quashed merely on allegations
of falsehood or malice if it discloses a prima facie case. The accusations against Lalit,
including rape under a false promise of marriage, and against Jashn, involving cruelty and
financial misconduct, warrant thorough investigation. Quashing the FIRs would impede
justice. The petitions should be dismissed, allowing the investigation to proceed as per legal
provisions.

ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IN BOTH THE CASES BE RELEASED ON BAIL ?

It is Contend that the bail applications for Lalit and Jashn should be rejected due to the
serious nature of the offenses and the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence. Lalit
faces charges under Sections 64, 69, 87, and 351 of the BNS, including rape under false
pretenses and criminal intimidation, which carry severe penalties. Jashn is accused of cruelty
under Section 85 BNS, a grave offense in marital relationships. Both accused have exhibited
questionable conduct, and their release could undermine the judicial process. Legal
precedents emphasize that bail should be denied in such cases to protect justice and societal
interests.

PAGE | IX
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: Whether section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

constitutionally valid?

It is Humbly Submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the Section 69 criminalizes
sexual intercourse obtained through deceit or false promises of marriage, where such
intercourse does not amount to rape. The provision mandates imprisonment for up to ten
years and a fine. This Respondent contend that Section 69 is constitutionally valid, examining
its alignment with the principles of justice and equality, and countering the allegations of bias
and violation of fundamental rights.

The primary contention from the petitioners is that Section 69 1is unconstitutional as it is
allegedly biased and infringing upon the right to equality before law as enshrined in Article
14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners argue that the harsh punishment prescribed in
the provision could be misused against men, leading to undue harassment and injustice.
However, it is imperative to analyze Section 69 within the framework of established legal
precedents and constitutional provisions to assess its validity.

Firstly, it is crucial to note that the Constitution of India provides the framework for
protection against discrimination and ensures equality before the law. Article 14 guarantees
that the State shall not deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the
laws within the territory of India. However, this right to equality is not absolute and allows
for reasonable classifications and distinctions made by the legislature, provided they are not
arbitrary or discriminatory. The Supreme Court has emphasized that such classifications must
meet the test of reasonableness and must not violate the principle of equality (State of West
Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar,2).

Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, aims to address the issue of deceit in the
context of sexual relationships and false promises of marriage. The provision serves a
legitimate state interest—protecting individuals from exploitation and deceit. The

1
Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ; Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc
2
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75

PAGE | 1
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

criminalization of deceitful promises of marriage, where the sexual intercourse does not
amount to rape, is designed to deter fraudulent conduct and safeguard the integrity of
personal relationships. This objective aligns with the principles of justice and the protection
of individual rights.

In the landmark case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan,3, the Supreme Court recognized the
need for laws to address gender-specific issues and to provide effective protection against
exploitation and discrimination. Similarly, Section 69 seeks to address a specific issue related
to false promises and deceitful conduct, thereby contributing to the broader objective of
ensuring justice and protecting individuals from exploitation.

Moreover, the argument that Section 69 is biased against men overlooks the fact that the
provision is designed to address deceitful practices irrespective of gender. The provision does
not discriminate between genders but focuses on the act of deceit itself.

Additionally, the argument that the punishment under Section 69 is disproportionately harsh
can be addressed by considering the nature of the offence and the need for deterrence. The
provision prescribes imprisonment for a term that may extend up to ten years, reflecting the
serious nature of deceitful conduct and its impact on individuals. The punishment serves as a
deterrent against fraudulent practices and is proportionate to the harm caused by deceitful
promises of marriage. The Supreme Court in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab 4,
held that the imposition of appropriate punishment is within the legislative domain, provided
it meets the standards of proportionality and fairness.

The contention that Section 69 violates the right to equality before law also fails to consider
that laws can be enacted to address specific issues and protect vulnerable individuals. The
principle of equality does not preclude the enactment of laws that target particular problems
or offenses. The provision must be evaluated in the context of its purpose and the safeguards
it provides against misuse.

In the case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal5, the Supreme Court reiterated that laws must be
assessed based on their objectives and effectiveness in addressing specific issues. Section 69
aims to address the issue of deceitful promises and provides a legal remedy for individuals

3
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241
4
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684
5
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600

PAGE | 2
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

affected by such conduct. The provision is not discriminatory but serves a legitimate purpose
in protecting individuals from exploitation.

Furthermore, the argument that Section 69 is unconstitutional due to its potential misuse does
not render the provision invalid. The legal system must have mechanisms to address misuse
and ensure fair implementation. Section 69 must be evaluated based on its text, purpose, and
alignment with constitutional principles rather than hypothetical scenarios of misuse.

Therefore, Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is constitutionally valid as it

addresses the issue of deceitful promises of marriage and provides a legal remedy for
individuals affected by such conduct. The provision serves a legitimate state interest, aligns
with the principles of justice and protection, and does not violate the right to equality before
law. The legal system has mechanisms to address misuse, and the provision must be
evaluated based on its purpose and effectiveness in addressing specific issues. The arguments
against the constitutionality of Section 69 do not hold, and the provision should be upheld as
a valid and necessary measure to protect individuals from exploitation and deceit.

PAGE | 3
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

ISSUE II: Whether grant of police custody beyond 15 days is constitutionally

valid in absence of any safeguards in the section?

It is Humbly Submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the grant of police custody
beyond 15 days in the present cases is constitutionally valid and justified under the prevailing
legal framework and jurisprudence. The extension of police custody is necessitated by the
emergence of new evidence and complexities involved in the investigations, which are
essential to ensure that justice is duly served.

Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 6, prescribes that the maximum
period for which an accused can be kept in police custody is 15 days. However, this provision
is not absolute and must be interpreted in light of the circumstances and requirements of each
case. The legislative intent behind this provision is to balance the rights of the accused with
the needs of effective investigation. In cases where new and significant evidence emerges
after the initial custody period, the extension of police custody becomes imperative to
facilitate thorough and comprehensive investigation.

In the case of Lalit, subsequent to the initial period of custody, substantial new evidence
came to light, including objectionable photographs of the victim and other women found on
Lalit's computer. Moreover, testimonies from witnesses such as Laila revealed that earlier
claims, including engagement photographs, were fabricated to mislead the investigation.
These developments underscore the evolving nature of the investigation and the necessity for
additional interrogation to uncover the full extent of the alleged offenses and possibly
identify other victims or accomplices involved in similar acts.

Similarly, in the case of Jashn, although initially arrested on charges of cruelty, subsequent
allegations pertaining to forgery, multiple undisclosed bank accounts, and corruption have
surfaced. These serious accusations require meticulous investigation, including tracing
financial transactions and verifying documents, which cannot be adequately conducted
without the custodial interrogation of the accused. The complexity and gravity of these new

6
Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973

PAGE | 4
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

allegations justify the need for extending police custody beyond the initial 15-day period to
ensure that all facets of the alleged crimes are thoroughly examined.

The Honorable Supreme Court, in the landmark judgment of Central Bureau of Investigation
vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni7, interpreted Section 167(2) and held that the total period of police
custody cannot exceed 15 days from the date of initial remand. However, the Court also
recognized that judicial custody can be extended beyond this period, and in exceptional
circumstances, the investigative agencies can seek further custody under the supervision of
the judiciary to meet the ends of justice. The decision emphasized that the provisions of
Section 167 are to be applied in a manner that balances individual liberty with societal
interest in effective crime investigation.

Furthermore, in State v. Dharampal8, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the duration of
custody must be commensurate with the requirements of investigation. The Court observed
that while undue prolonged custody is to be avoided to protect individual rights, adequate
time must be afforded to investigating agencies to collect evidence and ascertain the truth,
especially in complex and serious offenses.

In the present cases, the investigating authorities have acted in accordance with due process
by approaching the competent courts for extension of custody, presenting valid and
substantial grounds supported by emerging evidence. The courts, upon careful consideration
of the facts and circumstances, have exercised their judicial discretion to grant extended
custody, ensuring that the rights of the accused are not arbitrarily infringed upon while also
safeguarding the integrity and effectiveness of the investigation.

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes
protection against arbitrary detention. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to
reasonable restrictions as provided by procedure established by law. The extensions of
custody in these cases are being sought and granted following the procedure established by
law, with judicial oversight and for compelling reasons directly linked to the pursuit of
justice. Therefore, the actions are constitutionally valid and do not violate the fundamental
rights of the accused.

7
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni [(1992) 3 SCC 141]
8
State v. Dharampal 21 (1982) DLT 50

PAGE | 5
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

Additionally, in Sanjay Dutt vs. State through C.B.I. [(1994) 5 SCC 410], the Court held that
the provisions relating to custody and bail must be interpreted pragmatically, considering the
nature and seriousness of the offense, and the necessity of custodial interrogation for effective
investigation. The Court recognized that in certain situations, extended custody might be
essential to unravel complex criminal activities and prevent tampering with evidence or
influencing of witnesses.

The allegations that extensions of custody are being used as tools of harassment are
unfounded and speculative. The investigative agencies have demonstrated due diligence and
adherence to legal protocols by seeking judicial authorization for custody extensions,
substantiated by concrete evidence and investigative needs. The judiciary has exercised its
discretion judiciously, evaluating the merits of each request and ensuring that extensions are
granted only when warranted by the circumstances.

So the extensions of police custody beyond the initial 15-day period in the cases of Lalit and
Jashn are constitutionally valid and legally justified. They are grounded in the discovery of
new, substantial evidence necessitating further custodial interrogation to ensure thorough and
effective investigations. The extensions have been granted following due legal procedures,
with appropriate judicial oversight, and are essential to uncover the truth, hold the guilty
accountable, and deliver justice to the victims. Denying such extensions in the face of
compelling new evidence would impede the investigative process and potentially allow
serious offenses to go unpunished, thereby undermining the rule of law and public interest.

Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the Honorable Court should uphold the validity of
the extended police custody in these cases, recognizing the necessity and legality of such
measures within the constitutional and legal framework designed to balance individual rights
with the imperatives of justice and effective law enforcement.

PAGE | 6
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

ISSUE III: Whether the FIR should be quashed?

It is Humbly Submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that the FIRs in question are prima
facie valid and supported by sufficient material evidence to justify their registration and
continuation. The argument against quashing the FIRs is grounded in legal principles
established by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, as well as the relevant statutory
provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC).

At the outset, it is imperative to highlight the well-established principle that an FIR should
not be quashed merely because the accused alleges that the charges are false or motivated.
The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal9 laid down specific guidelines where
an FIR can be quashed, including cases where the allegations in the FIR do not prima facie
constitute any offense, where the FIR is frivolous or vexatious, or where the proceeding is
manifestly attended with malice. However, in the present case, none of these conditions are
met. The allegations in the FIRs registered against Lalit and Jashn disclose cognizable
offenses, and the police investigation should be allowed to proceed unhindered to ascertain
the truth.

The first petitioner, Lalit, is accused under Sections 64, 69, 64(2)(m), 87, and 351 of the
BNS. The allegations against Lalit include deceitful inducement of Lalita into a sexual
relationship under the false promise of marriage, which amounts to rape under Section 64 of
10
the BNS. The Supreme Court in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana held that the false
promise of marriage with the intention to deceive and exploit a woman sexually constitutes
the offense of rape. The Court emphasized that the consent of the woman is vitiated if it is
obtained through fraudulent means, including a false promise of marriage. In the present case,
Lalita has categorically stated that Lalit had no intention of marrying her and continued the
sexual relationship solely to exploit her. These allegations, if proven, clearly fall within the
ambit of Section 64 BNS.

9
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)
10
Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana AIR 2013 SC (CRIMINAL) 1389

PAGE | 7
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

Additionally, the charge under Section 64(2)(m) BNS is relevant as it pertains to the
commission of rape repeatedly over a period of time, which in this case, occurred as Lalit
continued to deceive Lalita even after their engagement. The inclusion of Section 87 BNS,
which deals with kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage, is also
justified given the circumstances under which Lalit lured Lalita to Bengaluru and kept her at
his residence. The respondent state submits that the FIR is supported by Lalita's statements
and corroborating evidence, including her telephonic conversations with Lalit, which indicate
his manipulative intent.

The contention that the FIR should be quashed because the case is based on Lalita’s father’s
influence is without merit. The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma11 has held
that the motives behind the filing of an FIR are not relevant if the allegations disclose a
cognizable offense. Even if there is a perceived influence or bias, it is not a ground to quash
an FIR if the ingredients of the offense are satisfied. The proper course for the accused is to
participate in the investigation and seek appropriate relief during the trial.

Regarding the petition by Jashn, the FIR lodged by his wife relates to allegations of cruelty,
criminal breach of trust, and criminal intimidation. The Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v.
State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 has discussed the misuse of Section 85 BNS but has also
emphasized that allegations of cruelty should not be taken lightly, especially when supported
by evidence. In the present case, the wife’s FIR is not baseless but is supported by specific
instances of cruelty, as well as allegations of financial misconduct by Jashn. The respondent
state argues that these allegations warrant a thorough investigation and cannot be dismissed at
the FIR stage.

The respondent further contends that the petitioners' claims of harassment and fabrication of
evidence are speculative and lack substantiation. The Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of
Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388 has held that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be
exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases where the FIR is demonstrably frivolous or an
abuse of process. In the present cases, there is no clear evidence to show that the FIRs are
baseless or filed with malafide intent. The investigation is at a nascent stage, and it would be
premature to quash the FIRs before the police have completed their inquiries.

11
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma 1992 SCC(CRI) 192

PAGE | 8
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

Additionally, the Supreme Court in Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi (2007) 12 SCC 369 has
emphasized that quashing of an FIR should be an exception rather than the rule. The Court
has held that if there is a prima facie case disclosed in the FIR, it is the duty of the court to
allow the investigation to proceed. The allegations against both Lalit and Jashn involve
serious offenses, and quashing the FIRs at this stage would impede the administration of
justice and set a dangerous precedent.

Therefore, the respondent submits that the FIRs against the petitioners are legally valid,
supported by prima facie evidence, and disclose cognizable offenses under the BNS. The
allegations of malafide intent and fabrication of evidence are speculative and unproven. The
investigation into these serious charges should be allowed to continue without interference.
Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court dismiss the petitions for quashing the FIRs and
allow the investigation to proceed in accordance with the law.

PAGE | 9
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

ISSUE IV: Whether the accused in both the cases be released on bail ?

It is Humbly Submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that granting of bail to both accused
on the grounds that the nature of the offenses, the conduct of the accused, and the available
evidence do not favor the exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail.

Lalit stands accused of serious offenses under Sections 64, 69, 64(2)(m), 87, and 351 of the
BNS. Section 64 of the BNS deals with the offense of rape, and under Section 64(2)(m),
repeated acts of rape are treated with even greater severity. Section 87 pertains to kidnapping,
abducting, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage, while Section 351 deals with
criminal intimidation. The allegations against Lalit include deceitful conduct with the intent
to have sexual relations with Lalita without any genuine intention of marrying her. The
offense under Section 64(2)(m) BNS alone carries a potential sentence of life imprisonment,
indicating the seriousness with which the law views such offenses. In the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal12, the Supreme Court observed that in cases of rape, the
presumption of innocence must be balanced against the gravity of the offense and the societal
interest in ensuring that such offenses are adequately punished. The Court emphasized that
bail should not be granted lightly in cases involving heinous offenses like rape, as it may
have far-reaching consequences on the victim and society at large.

Moreover, Lalit’s conduct has been questionable throughout the proceedings. He allegedly
entered into an engagement with another woman, Laila, while still maintaining relations with
Lalita, which points to his intent to deceive. The Supreme Court, in Prashant Bharti v. State
(NCT of Delhi)13, held that deceitful conduct by the accused, particularly in cases involving
promises of marriage, must be scrutinized carefully to determine the true intent of the
accused. If the promise to marry is found to be false from the very inception, the accused may
be guilty of rape, as consent obtained under false pretenses is not valid consent. In Lalit’s
case, the engagement with Laila and the subsequent discovery of objectionable photographs
further weaken his defense and suggest that his intentions toward Lalita were never genuine.

12
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal [(2015) 7 SCC 681]
13
Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2013) 9 SCC 293]

PAGE | 10
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

The allegations of criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS also merit serious
consideration. Lalita’s threats to Lalit to either marry her or face charges of rape reflect her
desperation, but it does not mitigate Lalit’s actions. The offense of criminal intimidation is
intended to protect individuals from threats that could force them to act against their will.

In the case of Jashn, the allegations of cruelty under Section 85 BNS are of a serious nature.
Section 85 was introduced to combat the menace of cruelty against women within marital
relationships, and the courts have consistently upheld the stringent application of this
provision.

The contention that the subsequent police remand granted to Jashn was illegal lacks merit, as
it is within the court’s discretion to grant such remand if there are valid reasons. The Supreme
Court in State of Maharashtra v. Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle 14 held that the grant of police
remand is a matter of judicial discretion, and unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice, the
higher courts should be slow to interfere with such orders. In Jashn’s case, the allegations of
forgery, corruption, and multiple bank accounts necessitated further investigation, and the
remand was justified on these grounds.

Both Lalit and Jashn argue that the influence of the complainants' families has played a role
in the registration of FIRs and the denial of bail. While the influence of powerful individuals
should not be discounted, but the courts have repeatedly held that bail is granted or denied
based on the merits of the case and not external influences. The Supreme Court in
Gurucharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)15 laid down the principles for granting bail,
emphasizing the nature and seriousness of the offense, the character of the evidence, the
possibility of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the larger
interests of society as key factors to consider. In both cases, the offenses are grave, and there
is a real apprehension that the accused may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if
released on bail.

Therefore, the offenses alleged against both Lalit and Jashn are of a serious nature, involving
not only the dignity and safety of the complainants but also the integrity of the judicial
process. The courts have consistently held that bail should not be granted in cases involving
serious offenses, particularly where there is a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing

14
State of Maharashtra v. Dhanendra Shriram Bhurle [(2009) 11 SCC 541]
15
Gurucharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) 1978 AIR 179

PAGE | 11
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

witnesses. The allegations against both accused, supported by prima facie evidence, justify
the denial of bail at this stage. The influence of powerful individuals does not outweigh the
legal principles governing the grant of bail. The respondents, therefore, submit that the bail
applications of Lalit and Jashn should be rejected, and the judicial process should be allowed
to proceed unhindered to ensure that justice is served in accordance with the law.

PAGE | 12
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
 MOOT EXAMINATION FOR NALANDA LAW COLLEGE –2024

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
counsel for the Respondent humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. That the section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is constitutionally valid.
2. That grant of police custody beyond 15 days is constitutionally valid as Provided.
3. That the FIR should not be quashed.
4. That the accused in both the cases should not be released on bail.

AND/OR

And may pass any such other, direction or relief that it may deems fit in the best interest of
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

The counsel pleads before the Hon’ble Court to bind

“Sacramentum habet in se trescomites, veritatem, justitiam et judicium; veritas

habendaest in jurato, justitia et judicium in judice.”

For this act of kindness, the Respondent shall duty bound forever pray.

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

Sd./

PAGE | 13
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT