IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2212 OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

TARUN TEJPAL APPLICANT

VERSUS

STATE & ANR

..RESPONDENTS

INDEX

SL.NO PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Urgent Application A
2. Notice of Motion B
3. Memo of Parties C
4. Synopsis D
5. Bail Application alongwith Affidavit.
1- 2
6. ANNEXURE A
A copy of the Statement made by the
Chief Minister of Goa on 21.11.2013 in
relation to the instant case.
7. ANNEXURE B
A copy of the Newspaper extract
published in Times of India dated
24.11.2013.

Application Under Section 482 of Cr.

8. P.C. on behalf of the Applicant for
exemption from filing Certified Copy of
Annexures, the true Typed Copy of
Dim/Proper Margin/ underline/Single
line spacing of the Annexures
alongwith Affidavit.

9. VAKALATNAMA

Filed By

(KARANJAWALA & CO)

ADVOCATES FOR THE APPLICANT,
12TH FLOOR, HINDUSTAN TIMES HOUSE,
18-20, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG,
NEW DELHI 110 001

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: 25.11.2013
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2212 OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

TARUN TEJPAL APPLICANT

VERSUS

STATE & ANR

..RESPONDENTS

Urgent Application
To
The Registrar
High Court of Delhi
New Delhi

Sir,
Will you kindly treat the present accompanying application
as urgently. The grounds of urgency are:
Petition praying for urgent orders is prayed for

Filed By

Through:
(KARANJAWALA & CO)
ADVOCATES FOR THE APPLICANT,
12TH FLOOR, HINDUSTAN TIMES HOUSE,
18-20, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG,
NEW DELHI 110 001

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: 25.11.2013
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

TARUN TEJPAL APPLICANT

VERSUS

STATE & ANR

..RESPONDENTS

Urgent Application
To
The Registrar
High Court of Delhi
New Delhi

NOTICE OF MOTION

Take notice that the accompanying application will be

listed before Court on 25.11.2013 at 10:30 a.m. in the
forenoon, or soon thereafter as may be convenient to the
Court.

Filed By

Through:
(KARANJAWALA & CO)
ADVOCATES FOR THE APPLICANT,
12TH FLOOR, HINDUSTAN TIMES HOUSE,
18-20, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG,
NEW DELHI 110 001

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: 25.11.2013
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2013

MEMO OF PARTIES

SHRI TARUN TEJPAL

S/O INDERJIT TEJPAL
R/O 12, LINK ROAD,
JANGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI
APPLICANT
VERSUS

STATE
(THROUGH N.C.T. OF DELHI)
RESPONDENT 1

STATE OF GOA
Through DIG, CID
Through resident
Commissioner, GOA
RESPONDENT 2

[AGAINST FIR NO 27/ 2013 DATED UNDER SECTION 354 IPC

REGD. AT PS DONA PAULA GOA]

FILED BY

(KARANJAWALA & CO)

ADVOCATES FOR THE APPLICANT,
12TH FLOOR, HINDUSTAN TIMES HOUSE,
18-20, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG,
NEW DELHI 110 001

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: 25.11.2013
 SYNOPSIS AND LISTS OF DATES

The present accompanying application under order 438 Cr.

P C is preferred by the Applicant who is a citizen of India,

who is the erstwhile Editor-in-chief of the Tehelka, weekly

magazine, a journalist, Author and Publisher of immense

repute and is a foremost critic of right wing majoritarian

politics in the country. Throughout his career, the Applicant

has strived for transparency and accountability in public

life and has been an active campaigner against the

attempts to tarnish the secular fabric of country. The

instant accompanying application is filed seeking transfer

of investigation of the FIR No. 27 dated 22-11-2013 P.S CID

CB registered under sections 354A, 376, 376(2)(k) of IPC

as the applicant apprehends the instant investigation being

carried out by the Goa Police is patently tainted, unfair and

is being used as an opportunity to satisfy the long standing

grudge of the political executive against the works and

ideological stand of the present applicant, the same is

apparent by the actions of political executives of Goa and

those of his party who have unleashed their wrath of

vengeance against the Applicant in garb of the

aforementioned FIR.

That the present FIR pertains to false and concocted

version of an intimate encounter between two individuals

which has been played out as allegations of sexual assault

against the Applicant and it is clear that the same are

being propelled as part of some malafide scheme. The

examination of the CCTV footage of Hotel Hyatt, Goa for

the days of 7th and 8th of November, 2013 will not only

unveil the concoction but will also establish the innocence

of the Applicant/accused. The factum contained in the

aforementioned CCTV footage is well within the knowledge

of the present Investigating Agency, however, the

Investigating Agency, in its endeavor to please its political

masters is turning a blind eye to it in abrogation of its

primary duty, i.e. to conduct a fair investigation and reveal

the truth.

It is pertinent to note here that as the mandates contained

in Article 21 of the constitution places human rights and

dignity for human life at the highest pedestal and the

principle of an accused being presumed innocent till

proven guilty, forms the basis of Indian criminal

jurisprudence and therefore it is obligatory that the

investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent and free

from incumbencies of any political interference to ensure

compliance with the basic rule of law.

The Applicant is no stranger to conducting various sting

operations against prominent members of the Political

Executive of the BJP and openly exposing various

illegal/criminal acts committed by them. It is pertinent to

note that the Applicant exposed the then President of BJP

in 2001 for committing corruption in defence deals as a

result of which the party President as well as the then

Defence Minister of the then Union Government had to

resign. Furthermore, the Applicant was also instrumental in

exposing the role of prominent party leaders and the

manner in which BJP was attempting to buy over crucial

eye witnesses and scuttle fair investigation in the Gujarat

riot case.

It is well established that as per the cardinal principles of

criminal jurisprudence each and every person accused of a

crime is entitled to a free and fair investigation and any

interference in the investigation would eventually deprive a

person of his right to a fair trial. The Honble Supreme

Court has laid down time and time again that investigation

into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable

features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a

grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was

unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. The bias of

BJP against the Applicant is a well known fact and has

earlier been nastily manifested in a manner in which

Tehelka was targeted post its expose on corrupt defence

deals in 2001 and was forced to shut down operations for

over 3 years as well as many of its employees being

implicated in false criminal cases. The mannerism and the

scale in which BJP has unleashed the wrath of its

vengeance upon the Applicant in garb of the present FIR is

synonymous to the previous attempts of BJP to malign and

target the Applicant and the same is apparent by the

statements issued by various party leaders including the

present Chief Minister of Goa.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI , AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SHRI TARUN TEJPAL

S/O INDERJIT TEJPAL
R/O 12, LINK ROAD,
JANGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI
APPLICANT
VERSUS

STATE
(THROUGH N.C.T. OF DELHI)
RESPONDENT 1

STATE OF GOA
Through DIG, CID
Through resident
Commissioner, GOA
RESPONDENT 2

FIR NO 27/ 2013 DATED

UNDER SECTION 354-A,
376 and 376(2)(k) IPC
REGD. AT PS DONA PAULA
GOA

APPLICATION SEEKING GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY

BAIL UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 ON BEHALF OF THE
APPLICANT.

MOST RESPECTFULY SHOWETH:-

1. That, the Applicant is the erstwhile Editor-in-chief of

the Tehelka, weekly magazine. The Applicant is a

journalist, Author and Publisher of immense global

repute. Throughout his career, the Applicant has

 striven for transparency and accountability in public

life and is the foremost critic of right wing

majoritarian politics in the country. Throughout his

career, therefore, the Applicant has been an avid

campaigner against any attempts to tarnish the

secular fabric of the country.

2. That the Applicant works and resides in New Delhi

with his family. He has been the managing editor of

the Tehelka group which has its principal office in

Greater Kailash, Part 2, New Delhi. The magazine is

also published from New Delhi. The enquiry in terms

of Vishakha Guidelines is also been conducted at

New Delhi.

3. That the Applicant alongwith his wife Geetan

travelled from Delhi to Goa via Jaipur to attend an

annual conference by the name of THINK 2013,

hosted by Tehelka magazine, of which the Applicant

was then the Editor.

4. That on 07/11/2013, while the said event was still on,

the Applicant had a meeting with one of his female

colleagues. It is pertinent to note here that the said

encounter was only light hearted bantering. The

nature of the said meeting can be easily established

by a perusal of the CCTV footage of Hotel Hyatt, Goa,

which is within the knowledge and reach of Goa

Police but the same has been blatantly ignored by

the Investigating Agency. That on 08/11/2013 a

further meeting took place between the two

 individuals but the same lasted for few seconds and

contained no incident which could constitute the

commission of a cognizable offence.

5. That, subsequent to the aforementioned meeting,

the Applicant did not have any further interaction

with the above mentioned female colleague. The

colleague referred above, continued to party and was

completely normal and friendly all throughout her

stay in Goa. She was at every party and social event

through the conference and stayed out late into the

night.

6. That there was not a single whisper from any corner

including above mentioned lady that any alleged

untoward occurrence had taken place during the

THINK fest.

7. That, to the shock of the Applicant, on 18 th November

2013, the Applicant was informed by the Managing

Editor of Tehelka Magazine that she has received a

complaint alleging sexual harassment against him

from a female colleague. The Applicant was shocked

to learn about this false complaint of alleged

harassment and categorically refuted the same.

8. That, it was after a long delay of over 10 days that

the Applicant was first informed that a complaint has

been received against him. The alleged complaint is

clearly motivated, false and an afterthought.

9. That the Applicant was shocked to learn of the

complaint and categorically and immediately refuted

 each and every allegation. The Managing Editor,

however, refused to even listen to the Applicants

version and overrode him, telling him that she was

making the decision in Tehelkas interest.

10. That the Applicant was told that a committee was

being set up in terms of the Vishakha guidelines as

have been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court

of India by the Managing Editor and was accordingly

advised to step down for a period of 6 months so that

an unbiased enquiry could be conducted.

Accordingly, the Applicant stepped down for 6

months.

11. That, further, to the shock of the Applicant, biased

and misleading accounts have been published by the

media to victimize the Applicant and, as part of the

pre-planned conspiracy to falsely implicate the

Applicant. The same has been blown out of

proportion by various groups with vested interests,

including topmost executives of Goa and even

national political leaders of one party. A copy of the

statement made by the CM of Goa on 21.11.2013 has

been attached hereto and marked as Annexure A.

12. The bias with which the investigation in the instant

matter is propelled can best be illustrated from the

news report which appeared in Times of India dated

24.11.2013.A copy of the said news article dated

24.11.2013 is annexed here to and marked as

Annexure-B.
13. That on 22.11.2013, the Applicant, through media

reports learnt of the registration of an FIR against

him by Goa Police under Sections 354A, 376, 376(2)

(k) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter

referred to as the IPC], which clearly is founded

solely on the basis of media reports of alleged

harassment by the Applicant.

14. It is pertinent that no complaint has been made to

Respondent no. 2 either by the lady who is the

alleged victim or any member of her family. It is

unprecedented that the state should make a

complaint or register an FIR without the knowledge,

statement or consent of any aggrieved complainant

without any person with a grievance or with locus for

a preliminary inquiry in an alleged occurrence of this

nature. This is particularly significant as reference to

the alleged occurrence by the lady is after more than

10 days of the alleged incident which took place on

7th-8th of November 2013 and is belated and an

afterthought.

15. That the Applicant has well founded reasons to

believe that the officers of Respondent No.2, in their

endeavor to appease their political masters are

turning a blind eye to crucial pieces of evidence

establishing the innocence of the present Applicant,

in abrogation of their primary duty, i.e. to conduct a

fair investigation and reveal the truth. Moreover, the

manner and the scale on which a particular political

 party has unleashed the wrath of its vengeance upon

the Applicant in the garb of the present FIR is

synonymous with the previous attempts of the BJP to

malign and target the Applicant and the same is

apparent by the statements issued by various party

leaders. The wrath of leaders of the BJP, individuals

whom the Goa Police cannot antagonize, against the

Present Applicant, is best manifested from the

statements made by them demanding that the

Applicant should atone in jail. Some have even

alluded to Tehelkas first undercover expose

which resulted in the resignation of the then

BJP President, Bangaru Laxman, suggesting it

was now payback time.

16. That, in light of the aforementioned facts and

circumstances the Applicant has no trust in the Goa

police and believes that Respondent no.2, because of

political interference and the mala fides of the state

government, is turning a blind eye to crucial pieces

of evidence. He therefore seeks intervention of this

Honble court under section 438 of the CRPC, against

any unreasonable deprivation of his liberty by the

Investigating authorities on the following grounds

amongst others.

GROUNDS

A. BECAUSE, as per Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma

vs Delhi Administration, ILR 1990 DELHI 203,

this Honble court has held :

. viewed from different angle, under Art.

226 of the Constitution the High Court has

been given still wider powers. Under Art.

226(2) it has been provided that the power

conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions,

orders or writs to any Government, authority or

person may also be exercised by any High

Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the

territories within which the cause of action,

wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such

power notwithstanding that the seat of such

Government or authority or the residence of

such persons is not within those

territoriesIn other words, the Applicant

is sought to be deprived of his personal liberty

and threatened to be arrested in Delhi within

the jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi and

through the police officers of Delhi to whom

the warrant has been endorsed, although the

offence is alleged to have been committed in

the State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, it cannot

be disputed that since there is a threat of

deprivation of liberty of the Applicant in the

State of Delhi in connection with an offence

alleged to have been committed in the State of

Uttar Pradesh, the cause of action in part

certainly arises in Delhi. Therefore, this Court

has Jurisdiction in the matter irrespective of

 the scat of the Government or the High Court

within whose jurisdiction the offence is alleged

to have been committed. Therefore, in the light

of the discussion above, we have no doubt in

mind that since the Applicant has reason to

believe that he may be arrested on an

accusation of having committed a non-bailable

offence in Delhi, this Court has certainly the

jurisdiction to enlarge the Applicant on

anticipatory bail under S. 438 of the Criminal

P.C. as well as under Art. 226 of the

Constitution.

B. BECAUSE, it is well established that as per the

cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, each

and every person accused of a crime is entitled to

a free and fair investigation and any interference

in the investigation would eventually deprive a

person of his right to a fair trial. The Honble

Supreme Court has laid down time and time again

that investigation into a criminal offence must be

free from obstructions or infirmities which may

legitimately lead to prejudice against the Accused.

The bias of the BJP against the Petitioner is a well

known fact and has earlier manifested itself in the

manner in which Tehelka was targeted, post its

expose on corrupt defence deals in 2001 and was

forced to shut down operations for over 3 years

 while many of its employees were implicated in

false criminal cases as well.

C. BECAUSE the Law Commission of India, in its 41st

Report dated September 24, 1969 pointed out the

necessity of introducing a provision in the Code of

Criminal Procedure enabling the High Court and

the Court of Sessions to grant "anticipatory bail".

It observed in para 39.9 of its report (Volume I)

and the same is set out as under:

"The suggestion for directing the release of a

person on bail prior to his arrest (commonly

known as "anticipatory bail") was carefully

considered by us. Though there is a conflict of

judicial opinion about the power of a court to

grant anticipatory bail, the majority view is that

there is no such power under the existing

provisions of the Code. The necessity for granting

anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes

influential persons try to implicate their rivals in

false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or

for other purposes by getting them detained in jail

for some days. In recent times, with the

accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is

showing signs of steady increase. Apart from false

cases, where there are reasonable grounds for

holding that a person accused of an offence is not

likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty

while on bail, there seems no justification to

 require him first to submit to custody, remain in

prison for some days and then apply for bail."

D. BECAUSE, the Statement of Objects and Reasons

for introducing section 438 in the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, itself clarifies that Section 438

was introduced as the need was felt to evolve a

device by which an alleged accused is not

compelled to face ignominy and disgrace at the

instance of influential people who try to implicate

their rivals in false cases.

E. BECAUSE, the Applicant apprehends that the

instant investigation being carried out by the Goa

Police is patently tainted, unfair and is being used

as an opportunity to satisfy the long standing

grudge of the political executive against the works

and ideological stand of the present Applicant.

It is pertinent to note here that, the present FIR

pertains to a false and concocted version of an

encounter between two individuals which has

been spun out as an allegation of sexual assault

against the Applicant and it is clear that the same

are being propelled as part of some malafide

scheme. The examination of the CCTV footage of

Hotel Hyatt, Goa for the days of 7th and 8th of

November, 2013 will not only unveil the

concoction but will also establish the innocence of

the Applicant /Accused. The factum contained in

the aforementioned CCTV footage is well within

 the knowledge of the present Investigating

Agency; however, the Investigating Agency, in its

endeavor to please its political masters is turning

a blind eye to such footage in abrogation of its

primary duty, i.e. to conduct a fair investigation

and reveal the truth.

F. BECAUSE, the mandates contained in Article 21 of

the Constitution place the dignity of human life

and liberty on the highest pedestal and the

principle of an Accused being presumed innocent

till proven guilty forms the basis of Indian criminal

jurisprudence and therefore it is obligatory that

the investigation should be judicious, fair,

transparent and free from incumbencies or

interference.

G. That, apprehending arrest and the deprivation of

his personal liberty in connection with the

aforesaid FIR, the Applicant is constrained to

move the present Application under section 438 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to

safeguard his liberty in terms of the stipulations

contained therein.

17. That, the Applicant is a person of well established

credentials and is a law-abiding citizen with immense

respect for the due process of law. The Applicant

undertakes to join the investigation as and when

required or called upon and shall extend his fullest

 cooperation to the authorities in the conduct of their

ongoing investigation.

18. That the Applicant is ready and willing to face the

investigation in order to prove his innocence and is

merely seeking a fair chance to defend himself

effectively.

19. That, the Applicant has deep roots in society and

poses no flight risk and there can be no

apprehension of him absconding from justice or

tampering with evidence.

20. That the Applicant is ready to comply with any

condition imposed by this Honble Court while

granting him anticipatory bail and shall further

comply with all the notices/ summons served on him

and undertakes to fully cooperate with the ongoing

investigation. Under no circumstance has the

Applicant interfered with the investigation, nor will he

refrain at any point from providing any information/

documents as required by the investigating agencies.

21. That, the present matter is not a case where

custodial interrogation is required, as nothing is

recovered from or at the instance of the Applicant.

22. That no similar Application has been filed by the

Applicant before this or any other Court and the

same is bonafide and in the interest of justice.

23. In view of the aforestated facts and circumstances,

the Applicant has grave apprehension of arrest and

hence is filing the instant Application for the

following reliefs as prayed for:

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed

that this Honble Court may be pleased to:

a) Grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant in FIR No. 27/

2013 dated 22.11.2013, under Section 354 A, 376,

376 (2) (k) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered

at Dona Paula or in the alternative grant ad-interim

anticipatory bail (interim transit bail) to enable the

applicant to approach the Appropriate Court for

seeking reliefs in accordance with law.

b) Pass such other Order(s) as this Honble Court deems

fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and

good conscience.

APPLICANT

THROUGH COUNSEL

[KARANJAWALA & CO.]

ADVOCATES FOR THE APPLICANT,
12TH FLOOR, HINDUSTAN TIMES HOUSE,
18-20, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG,
NEW DELHI 110 001

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: 25.11.2013
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

TARUN TEJPAL

APPLICANT

VERSUS

STATE & ANR

..RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Shri Tarun Tejpal aged about 50 years S/O Inderjit Tejpal

R/O 12, Link Road, Jangpura Extension New Delhi at

presently New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

on oath as under:

1. That I am the Applicant in the present application

and competent to depose. I am well conversant with

the facts of the case.

2. That I have understood the contents of the

accompanying Application and I say that the facts

stated therein are true and correct to my knowledge.

3. That I state that the contents contained in the

accompanying Application are true to my knowledge.

 DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Delhi this 24th day of November 2013 that the

contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my

knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material

has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

TARUN TEJPAL APPLICANT

VERSUS

STATE & ANR

..RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C.

ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT FOR
EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPY OF
ANNEXURES, THE TRUE TYPED COPY OF
DIM/PROPER MARGIN/ UNDERLINE/SINGLE LINE
SPACING OF THE ANNEXURES.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Applicant has preferred the accompanying

application, the contents whereof are not being

repeated herein for the sake of brevity and may be

read as part and parcel of the present application.

2. That this Honble Court may kindly exempt the

applicant from filing the certified copies of

Annexures, true typed copy of dim/proper margin/

underline/single line spacing of the annexures.

3. That the applicant undertakes to file the certified

copies of the documents as and made available to us

and also undertakes to file the fair typed of

 dim/underline etc. of documents, if so directed by

this Honble Court.

4. That the present application is filed bonafide and in

the interest of justice.

PRAYER

It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that in view

of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the

interest of justice, this Honble Court may be pleased to

exempt the applicant from the certified copies of the

documents and filing the true typed copy of dim/proper

margin/ underline/single line spacing of the annexures.

FILED BY

(KARANJAWALA & CO)

ADVOCATES FOR THE APPLICANT,
12TH FLOOR, HINDUSTAN TIMES HOUSE,
18-20, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG,
NEW DELHI 110 001

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: 25.11.2013