TEAM: D

ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLEGE OF LEGAL STUDIES

3rd NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF AHMEDABAD

UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, 1973

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. __________/2020

IN THE MATTER OF

MR. DHIREN STATE OF GUJARAT

V.
RAMESHBHAI TADVI
(APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
AHMEDABAD

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................3

Index of Authorities.................................................................................................................4

Statement of Jurisdiction.........................................................................................................6

Statement of Facts....................................................................................................................7

Issues Raised.............................................................................................................................8

Summary of Arguments..........................................................................................................9

Arguments Advanced.............................................................................................................10

Issue 1: Sexual Intercourse between Mr. Dhiren Rameshbhai Tadvi and Avantika does not
amount to rape......................................................................................................................10

(1.1) Avantika willingly engaged in sexual intercourse with Mr. Dhiren Rameshbhai
Tadvi................................................................................................................................10

(1.2) Mr. Dhiren Tadvi had no malafide intention...........................................................12

Issue 2: Welfare of the child born to Mr. Dhiren and Avantika is of utmost importance....13

Issue 3: Allegations made by Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai Vasava are unwarranted....................15

(3.1) There was delay in filing the FIR............................................................................15

(3.2) Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai Vasava dissuaded Avantika.................................................16

Issue 4: Anticipatory Bail must be granted..........................................................................17

Prayer For Relief....................................................................................................................18

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 2|Page

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION ACTUAL TERM

& And
AIR All India Report
All. India Law Reporter, Allahabad Series
Anr. Another
App. Application
Cr. Criminal
Cri. LJ. Criminal Law Journal
F.I.R. First Information Report
H.P. Himachal Pradesh
Hon’ble Honourable
IPC Indian Penal Code
Ker. India Law Reporter, Kerala Series
M.P. Madhya Pradesh
Mad. India Law Reporter, Madras Series
No. Number
Ors. Others
Para. Paragraph
PCMA Prohibition of Child Marriage Act
POCSO Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences
S. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
v. Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Anirudha Radheshyam Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, Cr. Bail App No. 2632 of 2019.......11
Ashok Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2008) 12 SCC 173...........................................15
Balu Baburao Kadam v. State of Maharashtra,(2016) SCC Online Bom 10169.....................10
Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao & Ors.v. State Rep, (2008) 2 SC Crimes 188..........................15
Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, (2010) AIR SC 2685..........................................14

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 3|Page

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana ,Cr. Appeal No. 2322 of 2010..........................................11

Dileep Singh v. State of Bihar ,(2005) 1 SCC 88 (para 14).....................................................10
Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 4 SCC 604..................................15
Jitender Kumar Sharma v. State & Another, WP (CRL) 1003/2010.......................................13
Jose Thettayil v. Station House Officer, Aluva East Police Station,(2013) SCC Online Ker
24281....................................................................................................................................10
Kunjukunju and others v. State of Kerala, (1973) AIR SC 1...................................................15
Musaddin Ahmed v. State of Assam, (2010) AIR SC 3813....................................................10
Nathulal v. State of M.P, (1966) AIR SC 43...........................................................................12
Partap v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2019) SCC online HP 1472.........................................13
R. Kulandavelu v. State, (1993) Cri. LJ. 2574.........................................................................15
Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 12 SCC 57...........................................................12
Rajesh @ Bobby v. State (NCT of Delhi)................................................................................12
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors, (2002) AIR SC 1475...........................12
Ram Lakhan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh ,(1977) AIR SC 1936................................12
Ramathal and Others v. Inspector of Police and Another, (2009) CDJ SC 443......................12
Re Anthony alias Bakhavatsalu, (1960) AIR Mad. 308...........................................................10
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 SCC 1..................................................................14
Sanjay v. State,Crl. M.B. 7901/2015 Crl. A. No. 97/2003......................................................12
Shyama Charan Sri Ram Saran v. The State, (1969) AIR Allahabad 61.................................12
Silak Ram v. State of Punjab, (2007) 10 SCC 464: AIR 2007 SC 2739.................................15
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand, (2001) AIR SC 2075............................................15
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh, (2009) 1 Law Herald SC......................................15
State of Karnataka v. Diwakara Bhat, (1997) Crl.L.J. 226 SC................................................15
State of Rajasthan v. Noore Khan, (2000) AIR SC 1812.........................................................15

State of Rajasthan v. Om Parakash, (2002) AIR SC 2235.......................................................15

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal, (2011) AIR SC 697....................................................10
State v. Schwale ,143 N.E. 29..................................................................................................10
Sunil Mahadev Patil v. The State of Maharashtra Bail Application, No.1036 of 2015...........11
Tulshidas Kanolkar v. State of Goa, (2003) 8 SCC 590..........................................................15
Vijay v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191.............................................................12
Vikram Khimta v. State of H.P. Cr.Appeal No. 579 of 016....................................................12

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 4|Page

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

Statutes
Section 16, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955....................................................................................14
Section 53, Indian Evidence Act, 1872……………………………………………………....12

Constitutional Provisions
Article 39(f), Indian Constitution.............................................................................................13

U.N. Conventions
Article 3, The Convention of the Rights of the Child..............................................................13
Article 9, The Convention of the Rights of the Child........................................................13, 14

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The applicant has moved to Hon’ble High Court of Ahmedabad under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

SECTION 438 -  Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 5|Page

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of
having committed a non- bail able offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of
Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the
event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai Vasava, a divorced woman and a resident of Kamrej, has two
daughters, Avantika and Ananya born on 22nd June 2002. In the year 2015, she sent
her girls to Swati Hostel in Surat, where Mr. Dhiren Rameshbhai Tadvi (24 years old)
was working as Grihpati, that’s when him and Avantika fell in love with each other.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 6|Page

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

2. On 28th October 2017, Avantika informed her mother that she has left the hostel,
mentioned about her sexual relationship with Mr. Dhiren Rameshbhai Tadvi and the
resulting pregnancy. They soon got married on 9th January, 2018 as customary law
marriage in the presence of the entire community.
3. After their marriage, Avantika and Mr. Dhiren were peacefully residing together and
on 25th June 2018 Avantika delivered a baby boy.
4. After more than a year after receiving the information about Avantika’s relationship,
Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai Vasava filed a complaint against Mr. Dhiren Rameshbhai Tadvi
concerning allegations of having sexual intercourse with her minor daughter.
5. Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai Vasava preferred a search warrant application for Avantika’s
custody. The Kamrej Lower Court transferred her custody to a women protection
home in Kamrej. Later upon the order being challenged by Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai
Vasava, this Hon’ble High Court granted her the custody of Avantika.
6. Post this, Avantika went on to file a complaint against her own mother on the grounds
that she was pressurizing her to break down the marriage life when she was peacefully
residing with her husband. She also alleged that her mother wanted her to collect
money and other articles from Mr. Dhiren Rameshbhai Tadvi.
7. Later, Mr. Dhiren Rameshbhai Tadvi preferred Anticipatory Bail application before
the Additional Sessions Judge as he was in apprehension of his arrest in lieu of the
Complaint filed by Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai Vasava, the same was rejected. Thus, he has
now preferred the Anticipatory Bail application before this Hon’ble High Court of
Ahmedabad.

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1: SEXUAL INTERCOURSE BETWEEN MR. DHIREN RAMESHBHAI

TADVI AND AVANTIKA DOES NOT AMOUNT TO RAPE.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 7|Page

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

ISSUE 2: WELFARE OF THE CHILD BORN TO MR. DHIREN RAMESHBHAI

TADVI AND AVANTIKA IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE.

ISSUE 3: ALLEGATIONS MADE BY MS. SHEELA KALUBHAI VASAVA ARE

UNWARRANTED.

ISSUE 4: ANTICIPATORY BAIL MUST BE GRANTED.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE1: SEXUAL INTERCOURSE BETWEEN MR. DHIREN RAMESHBHAI

TADVI AND AVANTIKA DOES NOT AMOUNT TO RAPE.

It is humbly submitted that Avantika willingly engaged in sexual intercourse with Mr. Dhiren
Rameshbhai Tadvi and he did not have any ill motive to seduce Avantika, they were in love

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 8|Page

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

and physical intimacy was a result of it. Avantika if at all had any objections, there were
sufficient opportunities where it was plausible to voice her contentions.

ISSUE 2: WELFARE OF THE CHILD BORN TO MR. DHIREN RAMESHBHAI

TADVI AND AVANTIKA IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE.

It is humbly submitted that welfare of the child born is paramount. The child has the right to
grow in an affectionate home and he should not be deprived of it unnecessarily. Further, Mr.
Dhiren Rameshbhai Tadvi is capable to sustain his wife and his child and the evidence of his
good character is a practical ground for granting Anticipatory Bail.

ISSUE 3: ALLEGATIONS MADE BY MRS. SHEELA KALUBHAI VASAVA ARE

UNWARRANTED.

It is humbly submitted that Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai Vasava has filed a complaint with an
unreasonable and exaggerated delay of 1 year and 6 months, further she has been pressurizing
Avantika to break off the marriage and collect money from her Husband, all of this plants a
seed of doubt as to if at all Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai Vasava has an iota of truth or is simply
fabricated.

ISSUE 4: ANTICIPATORY BAIL MUST BE GRANTED.

It is humbly submitted that Mr. Dhiren Ramesh Bhai has the Right to Liberty conferred upon
him by the Indian Constitution and it must not be hampered with on unsubstantial
accusations, especially when Avantika herself has no claims and has clearly hinted through
her conduct that she wants to be a part of Mr. Dhiren Ramesh Bhai’s life.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: SEXUAL INTERCOURSE BETWEEN MR. DHIREN RAMESHBHAI TADVI AND

AVANTIKA DOES NOT AMOUNT TO RAPE.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 9|Page

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble High Court of Ahmedabad that sexual intercourse
between Mr. Dhiren Tadvi and Avantika does not amount to rape and is not in contravention
of Section 375 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The contentions will be proved in two-fold
manner: (1.1) Avantika willingly engaged in sexual intercourse with Mr. Dhiren Rameshbhai
Tadvi and (1.2) Mr. Dhiren Rameshbhai Tadvi had no malafide intention.

(1.1) AVANTIKA WILLINGLY ENGAGED IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH MR. DHIREN

RAMESHBHAI TADVI.

It is humbly contended that Avantika willingly engaged in sexual intercourse. “Will’’ and
“Consent” can often interlace conceptually.1 The expression “against her will” and “without
her consent” may overlap sometimes but the two expression have different connotation and
dimensions2 and Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) categorizes these
two expressions under separate heads.3 “Willingness” is a state of mind and “consent” is one
of the evidences of that state of mind and the real test is whether the assault has been
committed against the will of the victim.4 Consent for the purpose of Section 375 requires
voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of
the moral quality of the act but also after having fully exercised the choice between resistance
and assent. A woman is said to consent only when she agrees to submit herself while in free
and unconstrained possession of her physical and moral power to act in a manner she
wanted.5
In Musauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam6, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that since, after the
sexual intercourse, both the prosecutrix and the accused remained together in the room, no
objection or resistance of any sort could be made out of the circumstances or inferred from
the prosecutrix’s conduct.
In Anirudha Radheshyam Yadav v. State of Maharashtra,7 the Hon’ble Court held that since
the victim is minor but she had sufficient knowledge and capacity to know full import of
what she was doing so, the bail application was being allowed. If prosecution cannot

1
Balu Baburao Kadam v. State of Maharashtra,(2016) SCC Online Bom 10169
Jose Thettayil v. Station House Officer, Aluva East Police Station,(2013) SCC Online Ker 24281
2
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal ,(2011) AIR SC 697
3
Dileep Singh v. State of Bihar ,(2005) 1 SCC 88 (para 14).
4
State v. Schwale ,143 N.E. 29
5
Re Anthony alias Bakhavatsalu, (1960) AIR Mad. 308
6
Musaddin Ahmed v. State of Assam, (2010) AIR SC 3813.
7
Anirudha Radheshyam Yadav v. State of Maharashtra ,Cr. Bail App No. 2632 of 2019

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 10 | P a g e

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

sufficiently comprehend the circumstances in which charge of rape can be levelled against
the applicant, the court must allow the bail application.8

There is lack of resistance on Avantika’s part while she accompanies the Applicant to various
places and participates in the act of sexual intercourse with him which undoubtedly depicts
her will. Further, the mere fact that Avantika had enough time and opportunities to inform the
police, her mother or any person in the hostel and she chose not to, indicates consent. Even
though, under Indian law, Avantika is considered a minor, she had a clear understanding of
the consequences of her act and the maturity to go through with it and this cannot be
disregarded. The Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, Avantika was neither
allured nor forced. She had gone with the accused voluntarily and without any threat,
pressure, influence or coercion. She was married to him and lived with him without any
demurrals. In the presence of an active role having been played by Avantika, the allegations
against the Applicant have no bearing.
When a boy and a minor girl are in love then “whether the act is violent or not and whether
there are antecedents or not” should be taken into account while deciding the bail
application.9 Therefore, the Applicant’s liberty should not be hampered with considering the
circumstances and anticipatory bail must be granted without a reservation.
Hence, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Avantika had the maturity to
understand the repercussions and the nature of her act and willingly made the choice to
indulge in it.

(1.2) MR. DHIREN RAMESHBHAI TADVI HAD NO MALAFIDE INTENTION.

It is humbly contended that the Applicant does not have malafide intention. Persons accused
of sexual assault also need protection from false accusation and implication against fabricated

8
Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana ,Cr. Appeal No. 2322 of 2010
9
Sunil Mahadev Patil v. The State of Maharashtra Bail Application, No.1036 of 2015

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 11 | P a g e

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

charges of rape10, loaded with ill motives.11 Such cases are not uncommon.12 Whether there
was rape or not would depend ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case.13
According to Section 53 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
In criminal proceedings, the fact that the person accused is of a good character is relevant.14
In the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors,15 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court laid down the factor of previous conduct and behaviour of the accused as ground for
grant of an Anticipatory Bail. Entire facts of the case,16 absence of mens rea17 and good
character of the person18 must be considered as valid grounds for the grant of bail application.

The Applicant throughout the course of his relationship with Avantika had neither hurt her in
any way nor had he endangered her life or inflicted any emotional or physical distress. As
established, Avantika had been willingly living with the Applicant without any resistance.
Further, the Applicant has been serving as the Grihpati of a girls’ hostel for many years, it is
plain logic that if at any instance he had ill will or acted malevolently he would have been
removed from the post. In a nutshell, all of this proves that he is man of good character.
It is therefore humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there was absence of malafide
intention on the Applicant’s end and he should be given privilege of Anticipatory Bail so that
he has a fair chance to prove himself before court of law.

ISSUE 2: WELFARE OF THE CHILD BORN TO MR. DHIREN AND AVANTIKA IS OF UTMOST
IMPORTANCE.

10
Sanjay v. State, Crl. M.B. 7901/2015 Crl. A. No. 97/2003
11
Rajesh @ Bobby v. State (NCT of Delhi)
12
Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 12 SCC 57
13
Vijay v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 8 SCC 191.
Vikram Khimta v. State of H.P. Cr.Appeal No. 579 of 016
14
Section 53, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
15
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors (2002) AIR SC 1475
16
Ramathal and Others v. Inspector of Police and Another (2009) CDJ SC 443
17
Nathulal v. State of M.P. (1966) AIR SC 43
18
Shyama Charan Sri Ram Saran v. The State (1969) AIR Allahabad 61 and Ram Lakhan Singh v. The State of
Uttar Pradesh (1977) AIR SC 1936

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 12 | P a g e

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that welfare of the child is of utmost
importance. Constitution of India expressly mentions that children should be provided with
opportunities and facilities and conditions wherein they develop in a healthy manner.19
Article 3 of The Convention on the Rights of the Child talks about best interest of the child
i.e. all actions concerning the child shall take full account of his or her best interest. 20 The
child has a right to live with his or her parents unless this is deemed incompatible with the
child’s best interests.21
In Partap v. State of Himachal Pradesh22, the Hon’ble Court held that, since, the prosecutrix,
being a minor, was residing peacefully with her husband (bail petitioner) for more than one
year and had delivered a baby boy, there was no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in
the jail for indefinite period. The welfare of the child and the wife was given priority in this
case.
In, Jitender Kumar Sharma v. State & Another, it was held that, the Courts must lent their
support, in cases where the husband is capacitated to maintain the minor wife and their child,
to the young couple and have rendered the minor free to reside with her husband.23

The Applicant and Avantika had consensually indulged in the act of sexual intercourse as a
result of which Avantika got pregnant24. Soon, as per the customary law on 09th January 2018,
they got married.25 After marriage Avantika and the Applicant started residing together and
on 25th June 2018 Avantika delivered a baby boy.26 Here the validity of marriage is not under
contention and it must be noted that Avantika was willingly residing with the Applicant as his
wife. There has been no decree of nullity that has been filed to that extent and Avantika has
no disputes or conflicts as far as her marriage is concerned.
Furthermore, Applicant has been working as a Grihpati in Swati Hostel for many years which
portrays that he was adequately employed and was earning enough to sustain both his wife
and

19
Article 39(f), Indian Constitution
20
Article 3, The Convention of the Rights of the Child.
21
Article 9, The Convention of the Rights of the Child.
22
Partap v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2019) SCC online HP 1472
23
Jitender Kumar Sharma v. State & Another WP (CRL) 1003/2010
24
Paragraph 3, Moot Proposition
25
Paragraph 4, Moot Proposition
26
Paragraph 5, Moot Proposition

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 13 | P a g e

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

their child. If the Applicant is not granted Anticipatory Bail, then the child at his nascent
stage will be separated from his father 27 and will not be able to grow in an environment of
natural love and affection when presence of a father is indeed crucial for development of the
child.

Arguendo: Even though the child born to Mr. Dhiren Rameshbhai Tadvi and Avantika is
illegitimate, his welfare is of paramount importance.

The child here is considered illegitimate as he was conceived prior to the Applicant’s and
Avantika’s solemnisation of marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 28 (hereinafter referred
to as “HMA”), the Apex Court has clarified the intent of the legislation with regards to
legitimacy of a child stating that it was brought about to bring social reforms, conferment of
social status of legitimacy on a group of children, otherwise treated as illegitimate.29
In Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun,30 the Hon’ble Apex Court opined that the constitutional
values enshrined in the Preamble of our Constitution which focuses on the concept of
equality of status and opportunity as well as individual dignity, the relationship between the
parents may not be sanctioned by law but the birth of a child in such relationship has to be
view independently of the relationship of the parents.

Hence, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the child’s welfare vests in
living with both his parents and he cannot be deprived of his right. The Applicant is capable
to sustain his family and as established is of a good character and there are no possible
grounds to reject the Anticipatory Bail application.

ISSUE 3: ALLEGATIONS MADE BY MRS. SHEELA ARE UNWARRANTED.

27
Article 9, The Convention of the Rights of the Child.
28
Section 16, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
29
Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, (2010) AIR SC 2685
30
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 SCC 1

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 14 | P a g e

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the allegations made by Mrs. Sheela
Kalubhai Vasava were not only unwarranted but also unsubstantial, and the same contention
will be proved in a two-fold manner: (3.1) There was delay in filing the First Information
Report (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”) by Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai Vasava; and (3.2) Mrs.
Sheela Kalubhai Vasava dissuaded Avantika.

(3.1) THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE FIR.

It is humbly contended that there was an unreasonable delay in filing the FIR. If there is a
delay in lodging of the complaint and registration of the FIR, it is normally viewed by courts
with suspicion because there is possibility of some sort of concoction and embellishment 31 of
the occurrence32, hence it is necessary for the prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay. 33
The court must scrutinise the adduced evidence with greater degree of care and caution. 34 The
court is obliged to take notice of delay in lodging the FIR and to examine whether the delay
was satisfactorily explained 35since it is a relevant factor.36 Unexplained delay in lodging the
FIR would be fatal to the prosecution. 37 The court has to seek explanation for delay and test
the truthfulness and plausibility of the reason assigned.38
In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand39, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that when
there is a delay in lodging the FIR in cases of sexual offences, the delay has an effect of
putting the court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered, 40 and if offered,
whether or not that explanation is satisfactory.41

In current situation, when on 28th October 2017, Avantika left the hostel and came back to
inform her mother, Ms. Sheela about her relation with the Applicant and the resulting
pregnancy.42 Ms. Sheela had ample amount of time to retaliate and stop her daughter from
31
Kunjukunju and others v. State of Kerala, (1973) AIR SC 1
32
State of Rajasthan v. Om Parakash (2002) AIR SC 2235
33
Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 4 SCC 604,
Tulshidas Kanolkar v. State of Goa (2003) 8 SCC 590
34
Silak Ram v. State of Punjab (2007) 10 SCC 464: AIR 2007 SC 2739
35
Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao & Ors.v. State Rep. (2008) 2 SC Crimes 188
36
Ashok Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2008) 12 SCC 173
37
R. Kulandavelu v. State, (1993) Cri. LJ. 2574
38
State of Rajasthan v. Noore Khan, (2000) AIR SC 1812
39
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand, (2001) AIR SC 2075
40
State of Karnataka v. Diwakara Bhat, (1997) Crl.L.J. 226 SC
41
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh, (2009) 1 Law Herald SC.
42
Para 3, Moot Proposition.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 15 | P a g e

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

marrying the Applicant, she did not act then nor did she attempt to stop the marriage of her
daughter. She remained silent throughout. Avantika delivered a baby boy on 3rd June 2019.
Ms. Sheela filed a complaint against the Applicant, after an exaggerated delay of 1 year and 6
months. There are no reasonable grounds for the delay, in fact it can be said that this
complaint is fabricated and intended to cause humiliation to the Applicant.
It is therefore humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there was an unreasonable,
undue and inexplicable delay in filing of FIR by Ms. Sheela.

(3.2) MRS. SHEELA KALUBHAI VASAVA DISSUADED AVANTIKA.

It is humbly contended Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai Vasava’s intentions were unclear and malice is
reflected throughout the case from her end. Not only was there unreasonable delay in lodging
the F.I.R by Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai Vasava, but there were no claims or contentions or even
complaints from Ms. Avantika. The allegations were propounded by Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai
Vasava herself.
Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai Vasava pressurized her daughter knowing she was residing with the
Applicant peacefully and had a happy married life. 43 It is imperative to note that Avantika had
adequate opportunities to ask for her mother’s help when she informed her regarding the
sexual relations and run away from the hostel or from the Applicant’s residence post
marriage.
Further, it must be taken into consideration that if Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai Vasava was actually
concerned about her daughter or her safety, she would not have permitted her to reside or
continue residing with the Applicant. Also, the fact that Avantika went ahead and complained
against her own mother alleging that her mother had ask her to collect all the money and
other articles, speaks volumes as to this whole complaint against the Applicant is fraudulent
and just an attempt to satisfy Ms. Sheela’s greed.
Hence it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai Vasava
has pressurised and eventually dissuaded Avantika.

ISSUE 4: ANTICIPATORY BAIL MUST BE GRANTED.

43
Para 7, Moot Proposition.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 16 | P a g e

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

It is humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the Applicant must be granted
Anticipatory Bail. Right to Personal Liberty and to live with dignity is a constitutional right.
Liberty cannot be hampered with superfluously.44 The object of the Anticipatory Bail is the
relieve of a person from unnecessary harassment or disgrace and it is granted when the Court
is otherwise convinced that there is no likelihood of misuse of the liberty approved and he
would neither abscond nor take such a step as to avoid due process of law.45
In Sunil Mahadev Patil v. State of Maharashtra,46 the Hon’ble Court laid down the grounds
for Anticipatory Bail (1) Whether there are antecedents or not. (2) It is also to be taken into
account in cases that boy in his early 20’s deserves to get employment and to plan, stabilize
and secure his future.
The Applicant is a reasonable man who has been accused wrongly. He has an undisputable
character, is capable of sustaining his family and throughout his relationship with Avantika
has not by act or omission reflected malice. Furthermore, the welfare of the child here cannot
be ignored. It is to note that from all the contentions it is proved that Mrs. Sheela Kalubhai
Vasava’s accusations are unwarranted and have only caused humiliation to the Applicant as
well as Ms. Avantika.
It is therefore submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Applicant must be granted
Anticipatory Bail on the aforementioned grounds.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, it is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that in the light of issues raised,
arguments advanced and authorities cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
44
Article 21, Indian Constitution
45
Narinderjit Singh Sahini v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 210
46
Sunil Mahadev Patil v. State of Maharashtra Bail Application No.1036 of 2015

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 17 | P a g e

 ANAND LAW COLLEGE & ANAND COLLGE OF LEGAL STUDIES
3RD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2020

 ACCEPT Mr. Dhiren Rameshbhai Tadvi’s application for Anticipatory Bail.

And / Or pass any such order, direction or relief as it may deem fit in order to uphold
the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the applicant shall forever humbly pray.

Sd/-

Counsels for the Applicant.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 18 | P a g e