BENNETT UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT MEMORIAL
Team code – Q2
Moot Memorial Bennett University First Year
.
Before
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sheria
.
Writ Jurisdiction
Under Article 32 of Constitution of Sheria
.
Mr Sherin Swami..................PETITIONERS
V.
State of Moxina .................RESPONDENTS
.
ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT OF
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) . / 2021
Memorial from the side of State of Moxina
Memorial from the side of respondent
[Type text] Page 1
BENNETT UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT MEMORIAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ 3
LIST OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF FACTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS........................................ 6
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................... 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS......................................................................................... 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.............................................................................................10
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………..13
I).Whether the police is abusing its power by interrogating a person who is rightfully
exercising his right of freedom of speech granted by article (19) (1) (A) of the constitution of
India?.............10
II). Whether the high court is within its authority to reject the plea of bail under article 226
and 227 habeous corpus of Indian constitution……………………..11
III) Whether the writ petition filed by the appellant is maintainable under article 32 of the
constitution of India……………….12
[Type text] Page 2
BENNETT UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT MEMORIAL
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Mr. Mister
rs rupees
Mohd. mohammad
Hon’ble honourable
govt goverment
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
IPC Indian Penal Code
ie That is
UOI Union of India
[Type text] Page 3
BENNETT UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT MEMORIAL
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
1)LEGISLATION:-
i)The Constitution of India
2)BOOKS:-
i)G.P. TRIPATHI Legal Method 2019 edition
3) CASES:-)
i) Bhusan power and steel and ltd vs Rajesh Verma ..22april 1947
ii) State of Telangana vs Habib abdulla jeelani ..6jan2017
iii) Ankit Mutha vs UOI 21ST JAN 2020
iv) Manoj Kumar Patel @ Manoj Patel vs State Of Bihar 16 September,
2010
v) Mr. M.D. Kale, Intelligence ... vs Mr. Mohd. Afzal Mohd. Yarkhan
& ... on 3 April, 1998
WEBSITES:-
i) WWW.MANUPATRA.COM
ii) WWW.INDIANKANOON.COM
[Type text] Page 4
BENNETT UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT MEMORIAL
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THIS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 AND
ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE VIOLATION OF BASIC
RIGHTS ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION.
THE RESPONDENT MAINTAINS THAT NO VIOLATION OF RIGHTS HAS TAKEN
PLACE. THEREFORE, THIS HON’BLE COURT NEED NOT QUESTION ITS
JURISDICTION FOR THIS WRIT PETITION.
[Type text] Page 5
BENNETT UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT MEMORIAL
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
Mr. Sherin swami lives in the state of Moxina in the country of Sheria. He runs his
own news channel called the republic of sheria. He is popularly known for his
fearless journalism. Mr.Swami is a polarising figure and has earned loyal
supporters with his fearless journalism. He is often interpreted as to have a soft
corner for the right wing thus have a lot of right wing supporters. The govt. of
Moxina is a coalition of star party and sherian national republic. On may 1st 2020
three hindu leaders on their way to skyline were lynched by the local people,
Mr.Swami alleged that the Sherian national republic party had something to with
the lynching. The police even questioned Mr. Swami about the legitimacy of the
claims. On 25th june 2018 a person named Mr.Neb committed suicide, his wife
accused Mr.Swami for not paying rs.80 lakh to Mr.Neb which he owed.
Mr.Neb even mentioned this is his suicide note. Police the arrested Mr.Swami
from his house where he allegedly assaulted a female police officer and
misbehaved with the police team. Mr.Swami was sent to 14 day judicial custody
after this and he did not get bail from the court even after giving a writ petition in
the lower and the high court.
CLAIM
After being arrested by the police of the state of moxina the appellant Mr.Swami
went to the high court and the apex court with a writ petition of for their bale and
quashing of fir but the petition was dismissed by both the courts and bail was not
granted to the Mr.Swami. So he has now approached the supreme court of the
state of sheria arguing on multiple points including that his arrest was rooted in
malice and that the allegations in the FIR do not establish the offence.
[Type text] Page 6
BENNETT UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT MEMORIAL
JUDGEMENT
The writ petition filed by the appellant before the Bombay High Court was heard and the
High Court reserved orders and granted liberty to the appellant to file an application for
regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC with a direction that it should be heard
expeditiously within four days of the date of filing.
Following the above direction, the appellant moved the Sessions Court of the State of
Moxina for bail under Section 439 of the CrPC. By its impugned judgment and order dated
November 20, 2020, the High Court posted the hearing of the petition filed by the appellant
in regard to the prayer of quashing of the FIR on 10 December 2020. While doing so, the
High Court denied bail to the appellant on the ground that no case has been made out 4 for
the exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction and that the appellant had an alternate and
efficacious remedy under Section 439 of the CrPC.
[Type text] Page 7
BENNETT UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT MEMORIAL
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I).Whether the police is abusing its power by interrogating a person who is rightfully
exercising his right of freedom of speech granted by article (19) (1) (A) of the constitution of
India?
II). Whether the high court is within its authority to reject the plea of bail under article 226
and 227 habeas corpus of Indian constitution
III) Whether the writ petition filed by the appellant is maintainable under article 32 of the
constitution of India.
[Type text] Page 8
BENNETT UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT MEMORIAL
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I). The police is not abusing its power by interrogating a person whose unlawful acts has
cause the death of another person as it was mentioned in the suicide note of Mr. Neb.
The police didn’t arrested Mr.Swami because he exercised his freedom of speech but police
arrested him as he was the alleged person who caused the death of Mr.Neb. Police arrested
him as the police had substantial evidence against him and the court also granted judicial
custody.
II). The high court is within its authority to reject the plea of bail under article 226 and 227
habeas corpus of Indian constitution.
In article 226, notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers,
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or
authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions,
orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo
warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred and
for any other purpose.
III) The writ petition filed by the appellant is not maintainable under article 32 of the
constitution of India.
The appellant cannot approach this court directly under Article 32 of the
Constitution by filing writ petitions
If It has already been authoritatively determined that no fundamental right of the petitioners
is violated.
Here no fundamental right is violated by arresting of a alleged criminal with substantial
evidence with the permission of the magistrate.
[Type text] Page 9
BENNETT UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT MEMORIAL
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I). The police is not abusing its power by interrogating a person whose unlawful acts has
cause the death of another person as it was mentioned in the suicide note of Mr. Neb.
1) The reason of the arrest was not what he was claiming it to be so the matter of
interrogating someone who is following his basic civil rights is out of the question.
i) The police did not arrested Mr.Swami in vengeance as he was claiming in his writ petition,
he was arrested in a 2 year old case where he owed about 80 lakhs ruoees of Mr.Neb and
refused to returned it which caused the death of Mr.Neb. It was clearly mentioned in the
suicide note that Mr.Swami is the reason why he committed suicide.
ii) It is absolutely legal in the rule of law to reopen a previously shut down case if the
situation demands so.
An ‘A’ Summary case is when the Magistrate classifies the case as genuine but not
‘detected’, ie, the investigation has not thrown up sufficient evidence. A Senior advocate
explained that there are two categories under this. One, where there is no clue about the
culprit and second, where the accused is known but there is no evidence against them.
Cases filed under ‘B’ Summary are maliciously false, with no evidence against the accused.
‘C’ Summary closure cases are filed when the criminal case was filed due to mistake of facts
or it is a civil complaint.
Since the closure report filed in the case of Mr.Neb’s death and the probe into the allegations
of non-payment of dues was under ‘A’ Summary category, the case can be reopened again.
2) IPC AND CRPC has various provisions that gives the right to police to summon anyone
with valid grounds and if permitted by the court the person can be upheld for judicial
custody.
Police clearly had evidence against Mr.Swami so it was completely legal to bring him under
custody and interrogate him.
[Type text] Page 10
BENNETT UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT MEMORIAL
II). The high court is within its authority to reject the plea of bail under article 226 and 227
habeas corpus of Indian constitution.
1) In cases like Ankit Mutha vs UOI 21ST JAN 2020, where the petitioner Mr.Mutha was
arrested and the appellant claimed the detention of petitioner in custody is illegal and the
same is violation of Article 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The court dismissed
the writ petition and did not granted bail to the appellant neither did the court quashed the fir
as the court deemed necessary.
A petition for habeas corpus is not maintainable when a person is in custody on the basis of a
remand order passed by a Magistrate having jurisdiction over the alleged offence.
That order can be separately appealed, but a writ of habeas corpus is a specific remedy
against an illegal detention, such as when a person is arrested and not produced before a
judge within the statutory time limit. It would also apply when a person is detained without
any information as to the grounds for such detention, even under a preventive detention
2) Mr. M.D. Kale, Intelligence ... vs Mr. Mohd. Afzal Mohd. Yarkhan & ... on 3 April, 1998
The power of the High Court and scope of Article 227 has not been dilated upon by the
Court. The Delhi High Court on its own motion cancelled the bail granted to the accused in
the case of Vishnu Pandit.
The high court is absolutely within its authority to reject the plea of bail under article 226 and
227 habeas corpus of Indian constitution, as there is no law binding the court to accept or not
to accept these petitions. Its decided on the merit of the case. In this case the court after
looking over the given circumstance and the evidences, decided not to the grant bail.
[Type text] Page 11
BENNETT UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT MEMORIAL
III) The writ petition filed by the appellant is not maintainable under article 32
of the constitution of India.
1) Manoj Kumar Patel @ Manoj Patel vs State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 16
September, 2010
There was a objection regarding maintainability of the application
of habeous corpus challenging legality of the detention, stating that since the
petitioner is detained in jail for flouting the order of the Court under Section
125(3) Cr.P.C. and there is a provision for issuance of warrant of arrest under sub-
section 3 of Section 125 Cr.P.C. for issuance of warrant of arrest and taking into
custody, the detention cannot be considered as illegal detention and writ
of habeous corpus is not maintainable.
2) Bhusan power and steel and ltd vs Rajesh Verma ..22april 1947
(The writ petition filed by the steel firm under artile 32 was rejected by
the court.)
The appellant cannot approach this court directly under Article 32 of the
Constitution by filing writ petitions
It has already been authoritatively determined that no fundamental right of the
petitioners is violated.
Here no fundamental right is violated by arresting of a alleged criminal with
substantial evidence with the permission of the magistrate.
There are many other precedence which clearly proves the point that the writ
petition filed by the appellant is not always maintainable under article 32 of the
constitution of India. The appellant have to have multiple factors in his side of
the court to prove that the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable.
[Type text] Page 12
BENNETT UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT MEMORIAL
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Sheria may be
pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. The present writ petition is not maintainable.
2. The Court have the jurisdiction to not accept a writ petition.
OR
Pass any other order, direction or relief that this Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Sheria may deem fit in the interests of equity, justice, and good
conscience.
ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULY SUBMITTED
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDANTS
[Type text] Page 13
