IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT DHARWAD

Crl. P. No. /2024

Between

Aanchal …Petitioner

And

The State of Karnataka

by Kittur P. S. …Respondent

INDEX

Sl. No. Particulars Pg. No.

1. Synopsis

2. Memorandum of Criminal Petition under

Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.

3. ANNEXURE-A:- Copy of the FIR and

Complaint a/w typed copy.

4. ANNEXURE-B:- C.C. of the Rejected Order

copy.

5. ANNEXURE-C :- C.C of the Remand

Application dated 19.07.2024.

6. ANNEXURE-D:- Copy of the Aadhar Card

of the Petitioner.

7. Memo of Appearance

PLACE: DHARWAD
DATE ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT DHARWAD

(Memorandum of Criminal Petition under Sec. 439 of Code of Criminal

Procedure)

Criminal Petition No. / 2024

IN THE MATTER OF :

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KITTUR,

BELAGAVI DIST.

Crime No.131/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

BELAGAVI , AT BELAGAVI

Crl. Misc. No. 905/2024

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

DHARWAD

Criminal Petition No. / 2024

RANK OF THE PARTIES

Before this Court
Before the Trial Court

BETWEEN:

AANCHAL
D/o. Subodh Kumar
Aged about 24 years
Occupation: Beautician
R/at. D-341, Street No. 2,
Ashok Nagar, Nand Nagri,
North-East Delhi, Delhi 110 093
(Now in Judicial Custody) …PETITIONER
(Accused No. 04)

AND:
State of Karnataka
by Kittur P.S.
Represented by Ld.
State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad 580 011 …RESPONDENT
(Complainant)

MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL PETITION UNDER SECTION

439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

The Petitioner above named most humbly submits as follows:

1. It is submitted that for the purpose of service of notice etc.,

the address of the petitioner is as correctly furnished in the

cause title and the same may also be served on their served on

their counsel’s firm M/s. LEGAL INK, Rep. by Sunil Kumar. S &

Lakshmikanth. G, Advocates & Consultants, having their office

at #12/69, Opp. to MEI Polytechnic, 59 th Cross, 4th Block,

Rajajinagar, Bengaluru 560 010.

2. That for the purpose mentioned above the address of the

Respondent is as correctly stated in the cause title.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The brief case of the prosecution as culled out from the

complaint are that the Complainant by name Amit Ashok

Periwal R/o Shastrinagar Belagavi who is the Owner of Salasar

Balaji Steel and Cement Shop, had sent two of his workers by

name Chandhanath Rameshwar Sidh and Sunil Rajkumar

Prajapath to pay Rupees 10 Lakhs to the complainant’s friend

by name Milan Jain R/o Shivamogga. That allegedly on

30.06.2024 at about 6am, Chandhanath Rameshwar Sidh and

Sunil Rajkumar Prajapath were carrying Rupees 10 Lakhs in

TATA Nexon bearing Registration Number KA-17-MA/1992 and

while travelling from Belagavi to Shivamogga via Belagavi -

Dharwad NH48, at Kittur outskirts, a White Colored Innova

Crysta which was coming from the Belagavi side overtook the

TATA Nexon and intercepted it from the front. That allegedly

out of 6 people who were in the Innova Car, 4 unknown persons

came near the Car and forced them to open the car door and

punched them and tied their hands and snatched Rs. 10 Lakhs

forcibly. Hence, the complaint.

4. Upon receiving the complaint on 03/07/2024 the Respondent

Police have registered a case in Crime No. 131/2024 for

offences p/u/s 341, 392, 395 of IPC against 6 unknown persons.

The Petitioner herein is arraigned as Accused No. 4 in the

Remand Application.

5. The Petitioner/Accused No. 4 is in custody since the date of

her arrest i.e., 15.07.2024.

6. The Petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Court of VIII Addl.

Sessions Judge, Belagavi seeking the relief of regular bail and

the same came to be dismissed on 09/08/2024. Aggrieved by

the same, the Petitioner/Accused No. 4 is before this Hon’ble

Court seeking the relief of regular bail on the following and such

other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing of the petition.

The C. Copy of the FIR & Complaint a/w typed copy, C. Copy of

the Bail Rejected Order dated 09.08.2024 and C.Copy of the

Remand Application dated 19.07.2024 are herewith produced at

ANNEXURE - ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’ respectively.

BACKGROUND OF THE PETITIONER:

7. It is submitted that the Petitioner is an International Makeup

Artist by profession having her business in the name & style of

of M/s. A.V. Makeover. That the skill and talent of the Petitioner

has been recognized by various organizations globally and has

been awarded with various awards some among them to be

noteworthy are “Best Makeup Artist” by XPERT International,

Dubai, “The Real Super Woman Award-2022” by FSIA. She is

known for her modest nature and dedication among the family

members and society.

GROUNDS

8. The Petitioner most respectfully submits that she is innocent

of the offences alleged against her and that she has been

falsely implicated in the above case at the behest of the

complainant and to make unlawful gains.

9. That, the Petitioner has got a valid and tenable defense in

the above case and that she can prove her innocence and also

that the above case is just intended to harass her.

10. It is submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant

clearly shows that it’s a concocted one only to make gains with

ulterior motive.

11. It is submitted that the Complaint is filed against unknown

persons and that there is no mention of the Petitioner's name in

the Complaint or in the FIR. Thus, it is clear that the Petitioner is

roped in this crime with an intention to harass the Petitioner

and wreck vengeance and also intended to book the Petitioner

under non-bailable offences.

12. It is submitted that it is the fundamental duty of the

investigation officer/arresting authority to provide/ furnish a

copy of grounds of arrest to the accused person as mandated

under Sec. 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 22

of Constitution of India.

13. In the present case the investigation officer has not

provided the grounds of arrest to the Petitioner/Accused Person

which is mandatory under Article 22 of the Constitution of India

and further envisaged under Sec. 50 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

14. The Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the said issue in

the case of Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi)

reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 934 and the relevant portion

is extracted below:

46. We are of the firm opinion that once this Court

has interpreted the provisions of the statute in
context to the constitutional scheme and has laid
down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed
to the accused in writing expeditiously, the said ratio
becomes the law of the land binding on all the Courts
in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the
Constitution of India.

47. Now, coming to the aspect as to whether the

grounds of arrest were actually conveyed to the
appellant in writing before he was remanded to the
custody of the Investigating Officer.
48. We have carefully perused the arrest memo
(Annexure P-7) and find that the same nowhere
conveys the grounds on which the accused was
being arrested. The arrest memo is simply a
proforma indicating the formal 'reasons' for which
the accused was being arrested.

49. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that

there is a significant difference in the phrase
'reasons for arrest' and 'grounds of arrest'. The
'reasons for arrest' as indicated in the arrest memo
are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the
accused person from committing any further offence;
for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the
accused person from causing the evidence of the
offence to disappear or tempering with such
evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested
person for making inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to the Investigating Officer. These reasons
would commonly apply to any person arrested on
charge of a crime whereas the 'grounds of arrest'
would be required to contain all such details in hand
of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the
arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of
arrest informed in writing must convey to the
arrested accused all basic facts on which he was
being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of
defending himself against custodial remand and to
seek bail. Thus, the 'grounds of arrest' would
invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be
equated with the 'reasons of arrest' which are
general in nature.

50. From the detailed analysis made above, there is

no hesitation in the mind of the Court to reach to a
conclusion that the copy of the remand application in
the purported exercise of communication of the
grounds of arrest in writing was not provided to the
 accused appellant or his counsel before passing of
the order of remand dated 4th October, 2023 which
vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand of the
appellant.

Hence, the Petitioner is entitled to be directed to release on bail

by applying the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the cases of Pankaj Bansal and reiterated in

Prabir Purkayastha.

15. It is further submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 3

days in lodging the present complaint and that the inordinate

delay of 3 days being unexplained goes to the genesis of the

matter itself and shakes the veracity of the complaint itself.

16. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a young lady

having a credible status in the society and that law provides for

a preferential treatment to be given to woman as enumerated

under Sec. 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, the

Hon’ble Apex Court and this Hon’ble Court in catena of

decisions have considered that the accused is a woman in

serious offences. This Hon’ble Court very recently in the case of

Bhavani Revanna v. State of Karnataka reported in 2024

SCC Online Kar 57 has held that:

“Petitioner a married woman hailing from a family of

undeniable political background has moved the petition.
 Preferential treatment of women in bail jurisdiction:

In our social structure, women are the epicenters of

family life; their displacement, even for a short period,
ordinarily disturbs the dependents, Added, they are
emotionally attached to the family. Therefore,
investigating agencies should be very cautious while
seeking their custodial interrogation. Women by their
very nature deserve preferential treatment inter alia in
matters relating to bail, regular or anticipatory. The text
of Provison to Section 437 of the 1973 Code supports this
view. The Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI,
(2022) 10 SCC 51, at para 51 observes:

...Proviso to Section 437 of the Code mandates that when

the accused is under the age of sixteen years, sick or
infirm or being a woman, is something which is required
top be taken note of ...In a case pertaining to women, the
Court is expected to show some sensitivity….”

17. It is submitted that even otherwise upon careful perusal of

the complaint it is evident that the complainant has come up

with a concocted version which arises a lot of doubts as to how

the accused persons got to know of the amount being carried in

the said car and in the said route at a specific time and place.

18. It is further submitted allegedly that the Petitioner had

transferred some amount on phone pe app for refueling and

had also recharged the fast tag of the vehicle. That, the
Petitioner upon being requested by her boy-friend (Accused No.

1) without having any knowledge of the alleged incident,

transferred the amount, recharged the fast tag and have

booked tickets at the instance of Accused No. 1 who happened

to be her boy-friend.

19. It is further submitted that the Petitioner herself is a victim

from one angle as the petitioner was being cheated by Accused

No. 1 in the present case suppressing the fact that he was

already married and promising the Petitioner that he would

marry her and having misused her without her knowledge, in

his illegal acts. The Petitioner only now through the Respondent

Police has acquired knowledge of the marriage of Accused No. 1

and his illegal acts.

20. It is submitted that from the records on hand it is very clear

that there is absence of mens rea which is an essential

ingredient to implicate a person under the offences alleged.

21. It is submitted that, there are no incriminating recoveries

are made by the police at the instance of the Petitioner/Accused

no. 4 and only coercive and forceful statement were taken by

the police for the purpose of falsely implicating the accused in

the case.
22. It is submitted that the investigation is over and the

Petitioner has been remanded to judicial custody and further

detention of the petitioner would serve no purpose and the

same would amount to pre-trial punishment.

23. It is further submitted that none of the alleged offences are

exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment.

24. It is further submitted that in number of cases the Hon’ble

apex court was held that “bail is a rule, jail is an

exception” and bail applications cannot be rejected merely on

the sentiments of the society.

25. The Petitioner is a respected and a law abiding citizen. If

this Hon’ble Court is pleased to grant the bail, she will not

violate the conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court.

26. The Petitioner has no criminal antecedents in her entire life

time and hails from a respectful family and continuation of her

custody would not only harm her hard earned reputation but

will also put her family to mental agony and hardship.

27. That the Petitioner is the sole bread winner of the family

and that her mother is suffering from various medical ailments

and the Petitioner is required to be next to his ailing mother to

take care of her mother.

28. It is submitted that the Accused is ready and willing to co-

operate with the investigation and will keep herself present

before the concerned Hon'ble Court on all dates of hearing and

before the investigating officer as and when summoned.

29. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a permanent

resident of the address as stated in the cause title and have

strong roots in the society. Further, the Accused is ready to

furnish surety/sureties to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court.

The Copy of the Aadhar Card of the Petitioner is produced

herewith as ANNEXURE – ‘D’.

30. It is further submitted that the Petitioner undertakes that,

she will not tamper the prosecution witness and shall abide with

the conditions of this Hon'ble Court.

31. The Petitioner may be permitted to urge additional grounds

at the time of bail hearing.

NOTE: No other petition/application is pending before this

Hon’ble Court or any other court seeking similar relief as sought
in the present petition.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner above named most

respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
enlarge the Petitioner/Accused No. 4 on regular bail in Crime
No. 131/2024 for offences p/u/s 341, 342, 395 of the Indian
Penal Code which is now pending on the file of Learned Civil
Judge & JMFC Court, Kittur, Belagavi Dist. in the interest of
justice.

PLACE: Dharwad

DATE: ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

[LAKSHMIKANTH. G]

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AT DHARWAD

Crl. P. No. /2024

Between

Aanchal …Petitioner

And

The State of Karnataka

by Kittur P. S. …Respondent

MEMO OF APPEARANCE

The undersigned counsels have been duly instructed on behalf

of the Petitioner/Accused No. 4 above named who is in judicial
custody, to appear and do the needful in the present case.

Hence, the Memo of Appearance.

PLACE: Dharwad

DATE: ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER