Assignment 2

Sunidhi Gupta, 20010489

1. BAIL APPLICATION

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT

AT GURUGRAM
BAIL APPLICATION NO. ____ OF 2024
IN
C.R. NO. _____ OF 2024

MR. RAMESH SINGH DAGAR ….Applicant

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA
Through Civil Lines Police Station ….Respondent

INDEX
SR. EXHIBITS PARTICULARS PAGE
NO. NOS.
1. BAIL APPLICATION
2. AFFIDAVIT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
3. ‘’A’’ The copy of the F.I.R No. 244 of
2024 dated 02.09.2024
4. VAKALATNAMA

Place:- Gurugram
Date: 09.02.2024

Advocate for Applicant

 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT
AT GURUGRAM
BAIL APPLICATION NO. ____ OF 2024
IN
C.R. NO. _____ OF 2024

MR. RAMESH SINGH DAGAR

Age: 25 years, Occ: Entrepreneur, Tiffin Manufacturer
Residing at H.No. 34,
Sector-15 Part II, Kirti Nagar
Gurugram, Haryana- 122001 ….Applicant

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA
Through Civil Lines Police Station
Sector-15 Part II, Civil Lines
Gurugram, Haryana- 122001 ….Respondent

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 480 OF THE

BHARTIYA NAGRIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 FOR GRANT OF
BAIL

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

1. The above-named Applicant is residing at the place mentioned in the

aforesaid cause title.

2. On 02.09.2024, Mr. Mahavir Kataria lodged complaint at Civil Lines Police

Station against the Applicant/ Accused and thereafter on the same date F.I.R.
bearing No. 244/2024 came to be registered under Section 103 of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The copy of the F.I.R bearing No. 244 of
2024 dated 02.09.2024 is hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit ‘’A’’.

3. That as per the statement and complaint lodged by the Complainant Mr.
Mahabir Kataria, the above-mentioned F.I.R came to be registered, and the
Applicant/Org. Accused was arrested by Civil Lines Police Station on the
same date i.e 02.09.2024 and currently the Applicant is languishing in Jail.

4. BRIEF ALLEGATIONS UNDER THE F.I.R

 a. The Complainant, Mr. Mahavir Kataria is a resident of Rohtak his son
stays in Gurugram in a house on rent in Sector 15, Part II to run his
business he has set up in Gurugram.
b. On 02.09.2024, he decided to visit his son in Gurugram. He talked to
his son on the same day in the morning about his arrival by around
3:00 pm in the afternoon. When in the afternoon he reached his son’s
rented home, he found his son dead in his bedroom.
c. He informed the police in the nearest police station i.e Civil Lines
Police Station, an F.I.R was registered and the Police began the
investigation.
d. That in the F.I.R the Complainant has alleged the Applicant/Org.
Accused for Murdering his son on the pretext of business rivalry and
the statements made in the F.I.R are false and baseless. The
Complainant has stated that the Applicant was threatening the
deceased for a long time due them being in the same business and
deceased expanding his business, ending the monopoly of the
Applicant. The deceased had informed his father about the same.

5. The Complainant has created imaginary and concocted story and falsely
implicated the Applicant/Org. Accused in offence lodged Section 103 of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Applicant/ Org. Accused has already
spent 15 days, remanded in the Police Custody and has since then, been in
the Judicial Custody till today.

6. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING BAIL ON FOLLOWING

GROUNDS:

i. SUPPRESSIONS OF FACTS BY THE COMPLAINANT

The Complainant has suppressed facts and have created false story only
with mere intention to harass and defame the Applicant and the
allegations made in the F.I.R are totally false and baseless. The
Complainant’s son had taken up loans from various vendors in the market
which were pending. Owing to this he had a bad reputation in the Market
and was receiving threats from lenders. The Complainant conceited this
 fact and is using the business rivalry to frame the Applicant/Org. Accused
in a false case of murder.
Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu V/s. Jagannath
(AIR 1994 SC 853) for suppressed facts for playing fraud which state:-
“The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice
between the parties. One who comes to the court, must
come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation
that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no
right to approach the Court. He can be summarily
thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant, who
approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the
documents executed by him which are relevant to the
litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to
gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty
of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite
party”

ii. THE STATEMENT AND STORY OF THE COMPLAINANT IN

THE F.I.R IS FALSE, BASELESS, FABRICATED, IMAGINARY
AND CONCOCTED
That the all allegations made in the F.I.R against the Applicant and totally
false and vexatious as the Applicant has done the same only with mere
intention to defame the Applicant and mentally harass him and the said
story in the F.I.R is imaginary story and no part of it is true as the
Applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.

iii. ABSENCE OF ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 103 OF

THE BHARTIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023
That essential ingredients are absent and the Applicant has been
unnecessarily involved in the crime. There is no proof that the bodily
injury that the deceased had been caused by the Applicant and further, the
intention to inflict such an injury is also not proved particularly.
 Supreme Court in the case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958
SC 465 observed that to bring the case under this part of the section the
prosecution must establish objectively:
“(1) That a bodily injury is present;
(2) That the nature of injury that must be proved;
(3) It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that
particular bodily injury;
(4) That the injury inflicted is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of the nature (this is purely objective)”

iv. ABSENCE OF ACTUS REUS & MENS REA

That there is absence of Mens Rea and Actus Rea as the Applicant is not
guilty of the offence committed by him as the same is false and baseless.

v. NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE & EYEWITNESS AGAINST THE

APPLICANT
That the Charge Sheet clearly shows that there is no concrete evidence
against the Applicant. The Applicant was arrested in 09.02.2924 was in
the remand of the police custody till 24.09.2024 and on 24.09.2024 the
Applicant was put into Judicial Custody till 09.10.2024 and nothing has
been recovered during the period. Further, no eye witness saw the
Applicant anywhere near the place of occurrence

vi. THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN ROPED IN THE CASE.

That the present F.I.R has been registered on false and bogus facts. The
facts stated in the F.I.R are fabricated, concocted and without any basis.
The police have falsely implicated the Applicant and arrested him in the
present case. That the Applicant is being unnecessarily roped in the
case.

vii. NO PRIMA FACIE CASE MADE OUT AGAINST THE

APPLICANT
That there is no case made out against the Applicant and the same is only
on the basis of false complaint lodged by the Complainant based on a
 false and concocted story which the deceased told the Complainant or the
Complainant made up on his own.

viii. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ABOUT BAIL

The applicant craves leave on following judgements or any other
judgements submitted during argument or any other stage of the
application.

A. BAIL IS RULE, JAIL IS EXCPETION

That it is imperative to emphasize that “Bail is the rule; Jail is the
exception”, the Golden Rule
a. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, through his insightful re-thinking on
bail, transformed it from being merely a discretionary act of the
judiciary to a fundamental right. In Babu Singh and Ors. v. State
of U.P., (1978 AIR 527, 1978 SCR (2) 777), Justice Iyer criticized
the brevity in bail orders, remarking that impressionistic orders
under the guise of discretion could jeopardize fundamental rights.
He emphasized that personal liberty is too valuable in our
constitutional framework to be curtailed without careful judicial
consideration. Bail denial should not serve as a punishment but
should only occur when the evidence suggests a significant risk of
the accused fleeing or interfering with the course of justice.
b. This principle was reaffirmed in State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v.
Balchand (AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535), where the Court
declared that "bail, not jail" is the basic rule. Bail, being a
fundamental right, should only be denied for substantial reasons,
with the magistrates and judges obligated to provide detailed
written justifications for such refusals. Moreover, the restrictions
imposed under Section 437 of the CrPC do not apply to the High
Court and Sessions Courts, where the primary objective of bail is
to secure the presence of the accused at trial.
c. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice H.L. Dattu, in Sanjay Chandra
v. CBI (Criminal Appeal No. 2178 of 2011), outlined that the
object of bail is to ensure the appearance of the accused during trial
and that it is neither punitive nor preventative. The deprivation of
liberty is considered a form of punishment unless required to
 guarantee the accused's presence at trial. They underscored the
principle that punishment begins only after conviction, maintaining
the presumption of innocence.
d. The courts have long recognized that pre-trial detention can cause
severe hardship, and holding an unconvicted person in custody
should only occur out of necessity. In such cases, necessity is the
guiding test. It would contravene constitutional values to deprive
someone of their liberty based solely on speculation that they
might tamper with evidence, except in the most extraordinary
circumstances. Courts must ensure that pre-conviction
imprisonment does not amount to undue punishment.
e. In Moti Ram v. State of M.P., (1978) 4 SCC 47, it was observed
that pre-trial detention imposes severe consequences on the
accused, affecting their livelihood and defense preparation, and
unduly burdening their family. This philosophy of bail, further
explored in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2
SCC 281, highlights that bail remains conceptually linked to
human rights. The UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, to
which India is a signatory, upholds bail within the realm of human
rights. Bail denotes a security ensuring the appearance of the
accused in court.
f. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra,
(2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court balanced individual liberty
with societal interests in law and order, stating that bail decisions
must consider the specific facts of each case. Personal liberty,
being a fundamental right, should only be curtailed when
absolutely necessary. The principles governing bail decisions, as
summarized in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi (2001) 4 SCC
280, require that the jurisdiction to grant bail be exercised on the
basis of established legal principles, avoiding arbitrary judgments.
g. In the case involving corporate figures such as Sanjay Chandra and
others, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that bail serves to secure the
accused's presence at trial. It is neither punitive nor preventive, and
refusal of bail restricts the individual's personal liberty under
Article 21 of the Constitution. As reiterated in Gudikanti
Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, the default
 rule remains "bail, not jail" unless compelling reasons justify
otherwise. Unless exceptional circumstances indicate that bail
would impede investigation or a fair trial, courts are inclined to
grant bail in cases not involving offences punishable by death or
life imprisonment.

7. The Applicant is a completely innocent and honest person who honestly and
ideally survived his life. There are no criminal antecedents of the
Applicant.

8. The Applicant is the permanent residence of given addresses in the cause

title and has deep roots in the society. He has a business running in the city
while his daughter studies in a school in the city, while all his close relatives
including his and his wife’s parents are residing in the same city. There is no
question him fleeing from justice or absconding by any stretch of the
imagination.

9. That if the Applicant is not released on bail, it will cause grave loss, harm to
his reputation in the society as well as financial loss to the Applicant.

10.The Applicant is the sole bread earner of his family. The trial will take a long
period to conclude. If the incarceration of the Applicant prolongs, his whole
family will suffer as he being the sole bread earner of his family.

11.That if the Applicant is not released on bail, he would be deprived of his

right to personal liberty as guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.

12.That the Applicant undertakes to join the investigation as and when required
by the police of Civil Lines Police Station and cooperate with the officials to
whatever extent required.

13.That the Applicant undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or witnesses.

14. That the Applicant undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions as
imposed by the Hon’ble court in the event of bail.
15. That the Applicant undertakes for not to hamper the bail and ready to
furnish the bail bonds of sound amount for the satisfaction of the Hon’ble
court.

16. That in such type of false cases the bail is rule and refusal of the bail will
not serve any purpose.

17.The Complainant is moving the different picture and trying to unnecessarily

drag the Applicant in false case and mentally harass the Applicant by various
ways.

18.The Applicant has not filed any other bail application in High Court or
Supreme Court of India.

19.That the Applicant craves leave to add or delete, alter, amend additional
facts, documents, grounds, judicial precedents, any other documents,
compilation of documents and judgments etc. at the time of argument and
hearing.

PRAYER
20.That the Applicant prays before the Hon’ble Court:
a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to enlarge the Applicant on bail for the
offense punishable under Section 103 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in
the case filed vide F.I.R No. 244 of 2024 registered at Civil Lines Police
Station on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper, in the interest of justice;
b. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above application, this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant interim bail to the Applicant in interest of
justice;
c. Interim and ad-interim relief in term of prayer clause (b) above;
d. to pass any further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice;
FOR THE ACT OF KINDNESS APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL
EVER PRAY.

Date: 09.10.2024
Place: Gurugram

Sunidhi Gupta
(Advocate for Applicant)
Shop No. 23, JMD Megapolis
Badshahpur Sohna Road Highway,
Sector 48, Gurugram, Haryana- 122018
 VERIFICATION

I, Mr. Ramesh Singh Dagar, Age: - 25 years, the Applicant above named residing at

H.No. 34, Sector-15 Part II, Kirti Nagar, Gurugram, Haryana- 122001, do hereby

state that whatever is mentioned in the above paras 1 to 5 are true and correct to

my knowledge and whatever mentioned in para 6 to 19 are the legal submissions

based on legal advice which I believe to be true and correct.

Solely affirmed in Gurugram on this 9th Day of October, 2024

Deponent
Before me,

Advocate for the Applicant

Identified by Me
 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT
AT GURUGRAM
BAIL APPLICATION NO. ____ OF 2024
IN
C.R. NO. _____ OF 2024

MR. RAMESH SINGH DAGAR ….Applicant

Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
Through Civil Lines Police Station ….Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Ramesh Singh Dagar S/o Anivesh Singh Dagar, aged about 25 years, being the
the Applicant residing at H.No. 34, Sector-15 Part II, Kirti Nagar, Gurugram,
Haryana- 122001, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: -
1. That I am the Applicant and am well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the present case and therefore competent to swear the
present affidavit which has been drafted by my counsel under my
instructions.
2. That the contents of the suit are not being reproduced here for the sake of
brevity and may be read as part and parcel of the present affidavit.
DEPONENT

VERIFICATION: -
Verified at ........................ on this 9th day of October, 2024 that contents of the
above paras 1 and 2 of the above affidavit are true and correct of my knowledge.
No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
IN THE HONORABLE COURT OF DISTRICTS & SESSION, GURUGRAM

CASE NO.: _____/ 2024

Applicant(s)/Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Mr. Ramesh Singh Dagar
Defendant(s)/Respondent(s): State of Haryana

VAKALATNAMA
I, Ramesh Singh Dagar, the undersigned, do hereby appoint, engage, and
empower Advocate(s) Sunidhi Gupta of the Hon'ble Court of _____________, to
represent me/us in the above-mentioned case.
The said advocate(s) is/are authorized to appear, act, plead, and file petitions,
applications, replies, appeals, or any other documents on my/our behalf, and to
engage in all proceedings related to the said matter, including withdrawal and
compromise, as deemed necessary.
The advocate(s) shall have the authority to sign, file, verify, and present pleadings,
appeals, petitions, applications, and other necessary documents; to deposit and
receive any documents, amounts, or property in connection with the case; to seek
adjournments, refer the case to arbitration, and perform any other legal act in
connection with the said case as fully and effectively as I/we would be able to do if
personally present.
I/We agree to ratify and confirm all acts and deeds of the advocate(s) in the course
of the performance of the said duties.
I/We shall not hold the advocate(s) responsible for any adverse outcome of the case
and undertake to settle all legal fees and expenses incurred during the proceedings.
Place: Gurugram Mr. Ramesh Singh Dagar
Date: 09.10.2024 Address: H.No. 34,
Sector-15 Part II, Kirti Nagar
Signature of the Party: Gurugram, Haryana- 122001
Phone: _______________

ACCEPTANCE BY ADVOCATE(S)
I/We, the undersigned, accept the engagement to represent Mr. Ramesh Singh
Dagar in the above-mentioned case and will perform the duties assigned to me/us
as per law.
Signature of the Advocate(s):
Place: Gurgaon Sunidhi Gupta
Date: 09.10.2024 Shop No. 23, JMD Megapolis
Badshahpur Sohna Road
Highway,
Sector 48, Gurugram, Haryana-
122018

Registration No. ________________

2. CRIMINAL APPLICATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _____ OF 2024

Dist.: Mumbai

Ashish Kumar ….Applicant (Original

Accused)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
….Respondents

INDEX
S. No. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.S
1. Synopsis
2. Criminal Application u/ s 828 of BNSS, 2023
3. Affidavit
4. Vakalatnama
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _____ OF 2024

Dist.: Mumbai

Ashish Kumar ….Applicant (Original

Accused)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
….Respondents

SYNOPSIS
S. No. Date Event
1. 21.06.2024 The Applicant, Ashish, a journalist and
environmentalist, called for a public movement during
his news program “JAAGO,” aimed at pressing
municipal authorities for clean water provisions. The
movement, following Ashish’s call, escalated into
violence and disrupted public tranquility.
 This lead to FIR being registered against Ashish
bearing No. 192/2024 under Section 192 of Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at Khar Police Station for
inciting the violent protest.
2. 22.06.2024 Investigation was launched, and Ashish was arrested by
the police in connection with the FIR.
3. 25.06.2024 Ashish applied for regular bail, which was granted by
the Sessions Judge.
4. 01.08.2024 The police filed a chargesheet, and the trial commenced
at the Sessions Court.
5. 12.09.2024 After the trial, the Sessions Court acquitted Ashish,
holding him not guilty of the charges under FIR No.
192/2024.
6. 20.09.2024 A second FIR No. 211/2024 was filed against Ashish,
again under Section 192 BNS, relating to the same
incident of the protest violence.
7. 21.09.2024 The police launched a fresh investigation against
Ashish pursuant to the second FIR.

Hence, this Application

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _____ OF 2024

Dist.: Mumbai

In the matter of Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Saving of Inherent powers of High Court
And
In the matter of F.I.R No. 211 of 2024 registered u/ s 192 of Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 at Kherwadi Police Station

Ashish Kumar
Age: 38 years, Occupation: Journalist,
R/o Flat No. 303, Green Heights Apartments,
Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050 ....Applicant (Original
Accused)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Khar Police Station,
Khar Road, Mumbai – 400052
2. Ishaan Virani
R/o H.No 50, Nirmal Nagar
Khar (E), Mumbai-
400051 ....Respondents

TO,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON’BLE PUISNE
JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT, ABOVE NAMED,

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The Applicant is the citizens of India and residing at the abovementioned

addresses. The Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra and the
Respondent No.2 is the Original Complainant in the complaint filed by her
bearing F.I.R No. 211 of 2024 against the Applicant were the complaint filed
by the Org. Complainant is bogus and fabricated and only mere intention to
harass the Applicant.
2. That at the behest of Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 1 without any
investigation has registered First Information Report (FIR) against the
 Applicant for the offences punishable under Section 192 of Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 bearing F.I.R No. 211 of 2024 on dated 20.09.2024. The
registration of aforesaid FIR is a shear abuse of process of law.
3. The Applicant seeks to approach this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its powers
of u/s. 528 of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, being inherent powers of
this Hon’ble High Court praying that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash
the F.I.R.
4. Facts which lead to the Application being filed:
a. The Applicant is a journalist by profession, well-known for his
investigative reports and activism. He is also an environmentalist and has
spearheaded various protests advocating clean water provisions in
Mumbai, gaining significant public attention.
b. On 21st June 2024, while hosting his popular news program “JAAGO”,
the Applicant made a call for peaceful protests against the municipal
authorities to demand better water infrastructure. The protests, though
initially peaceful, escalated into violence due to external miscreants,
leading to public disturbances.
c. Following this, an FIR bearing No. 192/2024 under Section 192 BNS
was registered against the Applicant at Khar Police Station, accusing him
of instigating the violence on the same day. The Applicant was
subsequently arrested on 22.06.2024 and released on regular bail by the
Sessions Court on 15.06.2024.
d. A full trial ensued, and after examining the evidence, including witness
testimonies, the Sessions Court, which began on 12.09.2024, acquitted
the Applicant, finding him not guilty of the charges under the FIR.
e. Despite the acquittal, a second FIR (No. 211/2024) was lodged on
20.09.2024 by the police on similar grounds and stemming from the same
 set of facts. This second FIR subjects the Applicant to harassment and
constitutes a misuse of legal processes.

5. GROUNDS FOR QUASHING THE FIR

I. Double Jeopardy: The second FIR is based on identical facts to the
earlier FIR (No. 192/2024) for which the Applicant has already faced
trial and has been acquitted. The initiation of another criminal
proceeding on the same cause of action is a clear violation of the
protection against double jeopardy guaranteed under Article 20(2) of
the Constitution of India.

II. Abuse of Process of Law: The filing of the second FIR is a direct
abuse of the legal process. It is aimed at harassing the Applicant and
dragging him into a prolonged legal battle despite his prior acquittal.

III. Trial Has Been Concluded: The Trial for the same incident u/s 192
of BNS, 2023 was concluded before the Court on 12.09.2024 and the
Applicant was acquitted of any charges in the Trial.

IV. Absence of Mens Rea & Actus Reus: The Applicant had no intention
of committing any act alleged by the prosecution before the Hon’ble
Court and any act to implement such an intention has also not been
established.

V. No New Facts or Allegations: The second FIR does not disclose any
new facts or incidents distinct from those already adjudicated in the
 first trial. Thus, it fails to establish any cause of action that would
warrant a fresh investigation or prosecution.

VI. Malicious Intent of the Police & Complainant: The repeated

initiation of proceedings by the police and the Complainant suggests a
clear malice in law enforcement agencies attempting to cause
unnecessary hardship to the Applicant.

6. The Applicant further submits that this is a fit case that this Hon’ble Court
exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of process of law as the false
and frivolous case has been filed against the Applicant to harass him.
7. That this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the
instant petition.
8. That this petition is being filed within reasonable time and there is no delay
in the same.
9. That the Applicant relies on the abovementioned facts grounds, documents
and other facts, grounds and documents, evidences, judicial precedents etc.
at the time of argument and hearing.
10.That no other petition for quashing of F.I.R, has been filed by the Applicant
before this Hon’ble Court or any other court of law.
11.That the aforesaid facts and grounds constitute the cause of action for filing
the present application.

PRAYER
In the light of the above facts and grounds, the Applicant prays:
 a. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the second
FIR No. 211/2024 registered at Khar Police Station under Section 528 of
Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita;
b. That pending the hearing and final disposal of this application, this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to stay the investigation and any further proceedings
under the said FIR;
c. For such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.

Date: 05.10.2024
Place: Mumbai

Sunidhi Gupta
(Advocate for Applicant)
Flat No. 501-502,
Uphar Apartments,
Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400053

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. Ashish Kumar, Age: - 38 years, the Applicant above named residing at Flat
No. 303, Green Heights Apartments, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050, do hereby
state that whatever is mentioned in the above paras 1 to 5 are true and correct to
my knowledge and whatever mentioned in para 6 to 11 are the legal submissions
based on legal advice which I believe to be true and correct.
Solely affirmed in Gurugram on this 5th Day of October, 2024

Deponent
Before me,

Advocate for the Applicant

Identified by Me

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. _____ OF 2024

Dist.: Mumbai
Ashish Kumar ….Applicant (Original
Accused)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
….Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Mr. Ashish Kumar, Age: - 38 years, the Applicant above named residing at Flat
No. 303, Green Heights Apartments, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050 do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as under:-
1. That I am the Applicant and am well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the present case and therefore competent to swear the
present affidavit which has been drafted by my counsel under my
instructions.
2. That the contents of the suit are not being reproduced here for the sake of
brevity and may be read as part and parcel of the present affidavit.

On this 5th day of October, 2024

DEPONENT,

VERIFICATION: -
Verified at ........................ on this 5th day of October, 2024 that contents of the
above paras 1 and 2 of the above affidavit are true and correct of my knowledge.
No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT
IN THE HONORABLE COURT OF DISTRICTS & SESSION, MUMBAI

CASE NO.: _____/ 2024

Applicant(s)/Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashish Kumar
Defendant(s)/Respondent(s): State of Maharashtra & Ishan Virani

VAKALATNAMA
I, Ashish Kumar, the undersigned, do hereby appoint, engage, and empower
Advocate(s) Sunidhi Gupta of the Hon'ble Court of _____________, to represent
me/us in the above-mentioned case.
The said advocate(s) is/are authorized to appear, act, plead, and file petitions,
applications, replies, appeals, or any other documents on my/our behalf, and to
engage in all proceedings related to the said matter, including withdrawal and
compromise, as deemed necessary.
The advocate(s) shall have the authority to sign, file, verify, and present pleadings,
appeals, petitions, applications, and other necessary documents; to deposit and
receive any documents, amounts, or property in connection with the case; to seek
adjournments, refer the case to arbitration, and perform any other legal act in
connection with the said case as fully and effectively as I/we would be able to do if
personally present.
I/We agree to ratify and confirm all acts and deeds of the advocate(s) in the course
of the performance of the said duties.
I/We shall not hold the advocate(s) responsible for any adverse outcome of the case
and undertake to settle all legal fees and expenses incurred during the proceedings.
Place: Gurugram
Date: 05.10.2024
Signature of the Party:
 Green Heights Apartments, Bandra
(W), Mumbai – 400050
Mr. Ashish Kumar Phone: _______________
Flat No. 303,

ACCEPTANCE BY ADVOCATE(S)
I/We, the undersigned, accept the engagement to represent Mr. Ashish Kumar in
the above-mentioned case and will perform the duties assigned to me/us as per law.

Place: Gurgaon Signature of the Advocate(s):

Date: 05.10.2024 Sunidhi Gupta
Flat No. 501-502,
Uphar Apartments,
Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400053

Registration No. ________________