INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)

KL COLLEGE OF LAW

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1

ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT ASPAR (OZALA)

Petition filed under sec 439A of Code of Criminal Procedure

Case No: /2021

IN THE MATTER OF

Ms. QUANTISA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- APPELLANT

V.
UNION OF OZALA & STATE OF ASPAR ----------------------------------- RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3-4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ------------------------------------------------------ 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS ------------------------------------------------------------------ 6-7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ----------------------------------------------------------- 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED --------------------------------------------------------------- 10-18

I. Section 439A of Ozalan Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not violative of the
fundamental rights guranteed under the Constitution of Ozala
[A] Section 439A is intra-vires the Ozalan Constitution.
[B] Object of law should be considered.
[C] Article 21 of the Ozalan Constitution is not an absolute right.
[D] Not violative of the right conferred under article 14 of the Ozalan Constitution.
[E] Upholds the Principle of Criminal Justice system.
II. Ms. Quantisa is not entitled to be released on bail
A. Section 439 A of the Ozalan Code of Criminal Procedure, starts with a
non-obstante clause
B. There are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is guilty of the offence.
1. Under section 188 of the Ozalan penal Code, 1860
2. Under section 270 of the Ozalan penal Code, 1860
3. Under section 325 of the Ozalan penal Code, 1860
4. Under section 308 of the Ozalan penal Code, 1860
C. Likely to commit an offence while on bail
1. Can mis-use her public stature and social media influence
2. Likely to violate the fundamental rights of others
PRAYER---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19

2
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. STATUTES:
a. Ozalan Constitution (Part III & Schedule VII)
b. Ozalan Penal Code, 1860
c. Ozalan Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
d. Epidemic Disease Act, 189

2. BOOKS REFERRED:

1. Constitutional Law of India, J.N Pandey, 56th Edition.

2. Indian Constitutional Law, M.P.Jain, 7th Edition.
3. Constitutional Law, S.R.Myeneni, 1st Edition.
4. Constitutional Law of India, Dr.Subhash C. Kashyap, 2nd Edition
5. Constitution of India, V.N. Shukla, 13th Edition
6. Constitutional Law of India, Narendra Kumar, 9th Edition.
7. Shorter Constitution of India, Durga Das Basu, 14th Edition.
8. The Constitution of India, P.M.Bakshi, 7th Edition.
9. Indian Penal Code, K.D Gaur, 6th Edition.
10. The Indian Penal Code, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 34th edition.
11. Indian Penal Code, S.N.Mishra, 12th Edition.
12. The Code of Criminal Procedure, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 22nd Edition.

3. CASE LAWS:

1. Alister Anthony Pareira vs State of Maharashtra on 12 January, 2012

2. CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452
3. Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr on 29 September, 2015
4. N.R. Mon v. Md. Nasimuddin, (2008) 6 SCC 721
5. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2)51
6. Prince v. Massachusetts - 321 U.S. 158, 64 S. Ct. 438 (1944)
7. Rohit Shekhar vs Shri Narayan Dutt Tiwari & Anr. on 23 September 2011

3
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

8. Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab 2018(5) SCALE 519

9. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra on 2 December, 2010
10. State Of Maharashtra vs Vishwanath Maranna Shetty on 19 October, 2012
800 of 2012
11. Tribhuwan Kharwar vs State of Bihar on 20 December, 1993

12. R.C. Cooper V. Union of India, 1970 AIR 564,1970 SCR (3) (536)

4. WEBSITES:

1. www.lexisnexis.com

2. www.ipleaders.com

3. www.manupatra.com

4
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Honourable supreme court of Ozala has the jurisdiction to try and dispose of the instant
matter under:

1. Article 136 of the Constitution of Ozala that is Special Leave to Appeal by Supreme
Court.
2. Section 439A of Ozalan Criminal Procedure Code.

5
INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The State of Aspar is the eastern most state of Ozala and shares its longest
territorial boundary with Yada. Lopasis, a tribe present in minority in Ozala,
constitutes the majority in Yada. The birthplace of the founder of the Vishlip
sect is believed to be the Great Temple of Aspar. Yada was one of the first
countries to be affected by the outbreak of the Coronavirus pandemic. The
media reportage of the actual numbers were suppressed by the government.
2. On March 10, 2020 thermal screening of the incoming passengers in Ozala
began, while from March 12 flights from countries with cases more than 2000
were stopped, not including Yada which had only 60 cases. On March 13, 2020
the government of ASPAR issued ‘Aspar Epidemic Diseases COVID 19
Regulations, 2020’ defining the term ‘Epidemic Disease’ as Covid 19. The
regulation prohibited a gathering of more than 15 persons. Although, contrary to
the orders the gatherings were a commonplace all over the state. The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also amended that day and Section 439A was
added which mentioned the draconian twin conditions for bail of a person
accused under the Epidemic Act.
3. With all the requisite permission from the government of Aspar, four citizens of
Yada, including Ms Quantisa, believed to be the reincarnation of the sect,
arrived in Aspar for an annual congregation of the Temple on 13 of March 2020.
Ms Quantisa was a practitioner of cosmic medication hence she believed that the
flu-like symptoms that she had were not of Covid 19, though she agreed to get
tested for the Covid on the day of her departure.
4. The small ceremony was held on March 14, 2020 and attended by only 58
visitors. During the ceremony, Ms Quantisa was seated on the stage. The other
three persons returned to Yada that very evening after the ceremony but Ms
Quantisa couldn’t because she was hospitalised due to high fever. On March 16
she tested positive for Covid. The government traced the attendees of the
ceremony and found that neither there were any deaths nor was anyone further
affected.
5. At the behest of the politicians from the majoritarian tribe of Gamus, an FIR

6
INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

was registered by the police against Ms Quantisa under various sections of the
IPC, 1870 and the Epidemic Diseases act, 1897. She was arrested the same day
and recovered fully within a week.
6. A charge sheet was filed on April 26. Due to the pandemic, the charges against Ms
Quantisa have still not be framed nor has the trial commenced. On May 10, Ms
Quantisa filed for a bail application in the High Court of State of Aspar and to do
away with the apprehensions proposed to submit her passport and reside in the
confines of the great temple of Aspar until the trial concludes. The High Court
denied the bail on the grounds mentioned in Section 439A. Ms Quantisa was further
accused of having committed a heinous crime. Ms Quantisa then challenged the
rejection of her bail along with filing a writ petition challenging the constitutionality
of the twin conditions of bail in the Supreme Court of Ozala.

7
INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I

WHETHER THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF BAIL

UNDER SECTION 439A OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE THAT REQUIRE
A COURT TO BE SATISFIED THAT THERE ARE “REASONABLE GROUNDS
FOR BELEIVING THAT A PERSON IS NOT GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE” AND
THAT THE PERSON “IS NOT LIKELY TO COMMIT ANY OFFENCE WHILE ON
BAIL” VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE
CONSITITUTION OF OZALA?

ISSUE II

WHETHER MS. QUANTISA IS ENTITLED TO BE RELEASED ON BAIL?

8
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I:

Whether the additional conditions for grant of bail under Section 439A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure that requires a court to be satisfied that there are “reasonable
grounds for believing that a person is not guilty of an offence” and that the person “is
not likely to commit any offence while on bail” violate fundamental rights guaranteed
under the Constitution of Ozala?

It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Court that the additional conditions for grant of
bail under Section 439A of the Code of Criminal Procedure that requires a court to be
satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds for believing that a person is not guilty of an
offence” and that the person “is not likely to commit any offence while on bail” doesn’t
violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Ozala. The amended
provision is intra-vires the Ozalan Constitution. The object of the provision is to consider the
interest of the larger public, which establishes its importance to be upheld. The provision is
not violative of the contended fundamental rights under Article 21, Article 14 and Article 19
of the Ozalan Constitution. Likewise, the provision under the amended section, 439A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, clearly upholds the Principle of Criminal Justice system.

ISSUE II:

Whether Ms. Quantisa is entitled to be released on bail?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Ms. Quantisa is not entitled to be
released on bail. The non-obstante clause of section 439A of the Ozalan Code of Criminal
Procedure, establishes the restrictive power of the court to grant bail. Given such clause, the
court is bound to follow the parameters of law in regards to the sensitive circumstance. On
the basis of the provision itself, it is clearly established that, there are no reasonable grounds
for believing that the person is guilty of the offence and the accused is likely to commit any
similar offence while on bail. Given this establishment, there is no ground for the Honourable
Court to grant any bail or make Quantisa entitled to it.

9
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I:

Whether the additional conditions for grant of bail under Section 439A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure that requires a court to be satisfied that there are “reasonable
grounds for believing that a person is not guilty of an offence” and that the person “is
not likely to commit any offence while on bail” violate fundamental rights guaranteed
under the Constitution of Ozala?

The twin conditions do not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the
constitution of Ozala

The twin conditions introduced under section 439 A of the Ozalan Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, that requires the court to be satisfied that there are ‘’reasonable grounds for
believing that the person is not guilty of an offence’’ and that the person ‘’is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail’’ do not violate the attracting fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Ozalan Constitution.

A. The amended provision is intra-vires the Ozalan Constitution.

B. Object of law should be considered.
C. Article 21 of the Ozalan Constitution is not an absolute right.
D. Upholds the Principle of Criminal Justice system
E. Not violative of the right conferred under Article 14 of the Ozalan Constitution.

A. THE AMENDED PROVISION IS INTRA-VIRES THE OZALAN

CONSTITUTION

The Seventh Schedule of the Ozalan Constitution divides powers between the Union and
state governments. In the course of tackling to health and public hazards like COVID-19
pandemic, the central government and the state concurrently and exclusively have the
authority of governance.1
1 Epidemic Disease Act, 1897, s, 1 and s, 2

10
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

The Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 confers powers on the state and central governments to
enact regulations necessary to address the outbreak of any dangerous epidemic. Upon such
delegation, the state and the central government is concurrently authorized on the aspect of
prevention of inter-state transmission of infectious diseases.2 The state also has the exclusive
authority to look into the matters of public and public order.3
In response to the situation and account of their authority, delegated by the Constitution and
the Act, the state government had issued the ‘’Aspar Epidemic Disease Covid 19 Regulations
2020’’ and amended section 439 A of the Ozalan Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973. Thus,
the twin conditions has been brought as the matter of need and as response to the authority
delegated by the Constitution. This ensures, the fair, reasonable and just application of the
law, as being intra- vires to the Constitution.

B. OBJECT OF THE LAW SHOULD BE CONSIDERED

In regards to the increasing Covid hazards international organizations and institutions have
been suggesting the governments of states worldwide to adapt strategies, to mitigate the
effects of Covid. In this context, laws are brought and necessary amendments are made to
prevent and mitigate the effect of the infectious disease. With the same legislative intent, the
regulations and amendments were brought in Ozala and its state of Aspar. The twin condition
so brought, is intended to restrict the scope of bail, in presence of the outrageous conduct of
the accused to deliberately spread Covid. Society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail
because every criminal offence is an offence against the state. The order granting or refusing
bail must reflect perfect balance between the conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of
individual liberty and the interest of the society4. The object of the twin condition is not to
violate individual fundamental rights, but to protect the fundamental right and interest of the
public therefore, it should be considered by the court and the parties associated and its
underlying societal welfare notion should be upheld.

2 Ozalan Constitution, Schedule 7, List III

3 Ozalan Constitution, Schedule 7, List II
4 Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 December, 2010

11
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

C. ARTICLE 21 OF THE OZALAN CONSTITUTION IS NOT AN

ABSOLUTE RIGHT

The Constitution does not put an absolute embargo on the deprivation of life or personal
liberty.5 The deprivation of life and liberty is sustainable provided, the fair, just and
reasonable procedure established by law is maintained. The rights guaranteed under Article
21 are not absolute in nature.6 Respect of public order, health and morality is permissible
justification for restricting the right of freedom.
There is no ground for any contentions to be made against the deprivation of liberty, that is
done in the pursuit of fair and reasonable procedure established by law. The twin conditions
as imposed under section 439A, poses requisites on the grant of bail, that the court should
satisfy with, thus, this confers to the established notion that freedom is not absolute.

D. UPHOLDS THE PRINCIPLE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The twin conditions uphold the principle of criminal procedure. If the language of the law is
to be looked upon, the condition requires “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the
evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to
whether there is a genuine case against the accused and prima facie evidence in support of the
charge could be. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt.7 This leaves no ground for the accused to contend the
procedure is discriminatory or in favor of the prosecution. Neither that the conditions negate
the principle of presumption of innocence. Further, at this stage, it is neither necessary nor
desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether or
not the accused has committed offence under the section. What is to be seen is whether there
is reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence she is charged
with and further that she is not likely to commit an offence under the said section while on
bail.

5 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51
6 Rohit Shekhar v. Shri Narayan Dutt Tiwari & Anr. on 23 September, 2011
7 CBI V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452

12
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

The satisfaction of the Court about the existence of the said twin conditions is for a limited
purpose and is confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail.8

E. NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT CONFERRED UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE

OZALAN CONSTITUTION.

In the case of R C Cooper v Union of India, it was held, “By Art. 14 of the Constitution
the State is enjoined not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection
of the laws within the territory of India. The Article forbids class legislation, 'but not
reasonable classification in making laws. The test of permissible classification under an Act
lies in two cumulative conditions : (i) classification under the Act must be founded on an
intelligible differentia distinguishing persons, transactions or things grouped together from
others left out of the group; and (ii) the differentia has a rational relation to the object sought
to be achieved by the Act : there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the
object of the Act.” Therefore, it is necessary to prove that the “twin conditions” of bail in
Section 439A of Ozalan Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has a nexus between the basis of
classification and the object.

The Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India held that a law
depriving a person of ‘personal liberty’ has not only to stand the test of Article 21 but also
Article 14 and Article 19. Arguments have been placed above that section 439A of the Code
of Criminal Procedure is not violative under article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of
Ozala. The object which is sought to be achieved is controlling the spread of Covid-19 and
protect the people. Thus, section 439A of Ozalan Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is
not violative to Article 19.
Thus, the counsel for the respondent humbly submits that the additional conditions for grant
of bail under Section 439A of the Code of Criminal Procedure doesn’t violate the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution
Thus, even the plain language of the twin conditions, illustrate the reasonable and fair
requirement of the criminal justice procedure.

8 State Of Maharashtra vs Vishwanath Maranna Shetty on 19 October, 2012.

13
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

9 R.C. Cooper V. Union of India, 1970 AIR 564,1970 SCR (3) (536)

ISSUE II:

Ms. Quantisa is not entitled to be released on bail

Having established that the twin conditions are not in violation of the constitution, the
legislated amendment is to be upheld while granting the bail. In this context, Ms. Quantisa is
not entitled to be released on bail due to the following contentions:
A. Section 439 A of the Ozalan Code of Criminal Procedure, starts with a non-obstante
clause
B. There are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is guilty of the offence
C. Likely to commit an offence while on bail

A. SECTION 439 A OF THE OZALAN CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,

STARTS WITH A NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE

The provision, under section 439 A of the Ozalan Code of Criminal Procedure, starts with a
non-obstante clause, stating that notwithstanding anything contained in the Ozalan Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused of an offence prescribed therein shall be
released on bail unless the conditions contained therein were satisfied, which indicates that,
that provision should prevail despite anything to the contrary in the provision mentioned in
such non-obstante clause.9 The section is clearly intended to restrict the powers to grant bail
of the Special Court and the High Court. Unless the Court applies its mind to the conditions
for grant of bail, as prescribed in section 439 A of the Ozalan Code of Criminal Procedure,
the Court cannot order the release of the petitioner on bail.10 When an individual behaves in a
disharmonious manner ushering in disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal
consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the court has a duty. It cannot abandon its
sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the
established parameters of law.11 Thus, the court requires to be within the realm of the intent
and object of the section.

9 Tribhuwan Kharwar vs State Of Bihar on 20 December, 1993

10 Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab 2018(5) SCALE 519

14
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

11 Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., & Anr on 29 September, 2015

B. THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING THAT THE PERSON

IS GUILTY OF THE OFFENCES

The expression `reasonable grounds' means something more than prima facie grounds. It
connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence
he is charged with. The reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such
facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused
is not guilty of the alleged offence.12 Following the event on 14th March, the tests of all the
attendees came out to be positive by the 20th March. on March 22, 2020 offences under
section 188, 270, 325 and 308 of the Ozalan Penal Code, read with Section 3 of the Epidemic
Disease Act were filed against Quantisa. Consequently, charges were filed in a Chargesheet
on 26th April. The charges so filed were reasonable and suffice to the reasonable grounds on
believing the guilt of the accused, which asserts that she cannot be held entitled for a bail. In
this regard following averments are humbly submitted:

1. Under section 188 of the Ozalan Penal Code, 1860

Quantisa has been filed under the charge of disobeying the order duly promulgated by the
public servant13. On March 12 the Government of Aspar had issued the ‘Aspar Epidemic
Disease COVID 19 Regulations 2020’. The regulation also had prohibited the gatherings of
more than 15 person within the state. Further, after the outbreak of COVID, the WHO had
consequently, issued a public health guideline for the protection of oneself and others,
including; limiting social gatherings, avoiding close contact with sick people etc. Defying the
orders promulgated to maintain physical distance and to avoid mass gatherings, Quantisa,
who had been showing flu like symptoms even before arriving to Aspar, had attended the
congregation of 58 visitors on 14th of March. It is clear that she was aware of COVID 19 and
the advisory about social distancing.

12 N.R. Mon v. Md. Nasimuddin, (2008) 6 SCC 721

13 Ozalan Penal Code, 1860, s. 188

15
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

Despite of this she clearly disregarded the rule of maintaining the physical distance, by
asking the attendees to drink water from her hand, claiming that this would increase their
immunity. These actions on the side of Ms. Quantisa, clearly establishes the reasonable
ground to believe that she is guilty of the offence under section 188 of the Ozalan Penal
Code, 1860.

2. Under section 270 of the Ozalan Penal Code, 1860:

The offence under this section suffice to doing a malignant act likely to spread the infection
of any disease dangerous to life, having a knowledge of it.14 To state that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the person is guilty of this offence, deliberate intention on the part
of the accused is to be established. Quantisa has been filed to have done a malignant act of
spreading Covid. Even before her departure from Yada, Quantisa had been defying her flu
like symptoms and had carried on with her travel to Ozala. She even defied her official’s
suggestion to cancel the visit to Ozala. She took anti pyretic drug to clear her airport
screening. Resistantly she had taken a test for covid before her departure and the result of
which that came after the annual congregation on the 14th March. She didn’t disclose this
information to anyone. When on the same day, she made all the attendees of the
congregation drink water from her hands, claiming that doing so would make their
immunities stronger. This clearly suffice on the part of Ms. Quantisa, that she had a deliberate
intention of doing the act. Thus, this establishes a reasonable ground that she is guilty under
this charge.

3. Under section 325 of the Ozalan Penal Code, 1860:

The offence under this section suffice to voluntarily causing grevious hurt, except in the case
provided for by section 335.15 To affirm the reasonable grounds for believing that the accused
is guilty of this offence, following matters are to be considered16:

14 Ozalan Penal Code, 1860, s. 270

15 Ozalan Penal Code, 1860 s. 325
16 State of Assam V Khitish Mahanta and others (U/S 325/294/34 of IPC) G.R. Case No. 800 of 2012

16
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

(a) that the accused has caused grievous hurt to any person
(b) That such hurt was caused voluntarily
(c) That such a case was not provided for by Section 335 IPC.

Provided that despite of being symptomatic of covid, and suffering from it, Quantisa attented
the congregation defying and lambasting the suspicion of her suffering She then willingly and
made all the attendees drink holy water from her hands, that resulted to all the attendees
getting contacted with the virus. Resulting to a positive test of the virus among all.
Even though, no casualties were caused, two attendees, got critically ill and required
ventilator support. Covid is a life threating infectious disease. Around the globe, more than
1.2 million people had been contacted with covid and more than 4000 people had died. The
voluntary action on her part amounts to voluntarily causing the grievous hurt, which
endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe
bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.17 Therefore these instances has
established a reasonable ground to believe she is guilty under this charge.

4. Under section 304 of the Ozalan Penal Code, 1860

The offence under this section suffice to doing an act with knowledge or intention and under
such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.18 To affirm that the accusation has reasonable grounds to
be believed, intention or knowledge of the person that the act is likely to cause death is to be
shown.19 Quantisa and her actions have presented many instances in the fact, that resembles
her knowledge and intention. From the very initiation, she had been defying that she could
even contact with covid, even after she was showing symptoms.

17 Ozalan Penal Code 1860, s. 320

18 Ozalan Penal Code, 1860, s. 304
19 Alister Anthony Pareira vs State of Maharashtra on 12 January, 2012

17
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

In response to the officials asking to cancel their visit on 14th, having seen that Qunatisa
had symptoms, but such suggestions were defied claiming that it would send negative
international signals. On the day of her arrival in Ozala, on 13th March, she took anti-pyretic
drug to pass her airport screening. Even when she had shown symptoms, to everyone’s shock
she began the congregation on the 14th of March by lambasting people who suspicioned her
contact with covid.

Above all, as a graduate in science, a publicly credible person, it is apparent that,

Quantisa was aware of Covid and its nature as a life-threating, communicable disease, that
had affected more than a million people worldwide. Even with this knowledge she asked all
the attendees to drink holy water from her hand to strengthen their immunities. Also, when
the results of her Covid tests came out to be positive, in the 14th after the Congregation, she
didn’t disclose this serious fact to anybody, until it was too late. This resembles her intention
in a much higher note. Thus, reasonable grounds for believing that she is guilty of under this
charge can be deemed apparent.

C. LIKELY TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE WHILE ON BAIL

Given the second condition that requires the court to be satisfied the accused is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.20 This condition, on the stand of Quantisa is not deemed
possible to be satisfied. In this regard, following contentions are humbly submitted:

1. Can mis-use her public stature and social media influence:

Given her public stature and her social media influence, she can use such platform and
following to spread mis-leading information, tamper the witnesses and evidences. If Ms.
Quantisa is left on bail, there are equal chances of her absconding or not staying sincere to the
course of justice. In a situation as serious as a pandemic, no chances should be taken where
there is risk of occurring several instances of offences. Thus, this doesn’t suffice the
condition, she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail

20 Ozalan Penal Code, s, 439 A

18
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

2. Likely to violate the fundamental rights of others:

Given that, Quantisa has suffered from covid. Even though, she is stated to have recovered
within a week. The chances of her falling ill with the virus again remains there. As a person
who has already infected all the visitors, if she remains outside, in her own, she is likely to be
threat among general public or anybody who can potentially come in her contact. Everyone is
entitled to protection from communicable diseases and nosocomial infections, and has the
obligation to protect their own health and health of others against these diseases This violates
the rights of general public to be living securely and freely. Covid is a life-threatening disease
and is an issue that the government around the world is tackling with. In regards to this
stance, no doesn’t seem likely that she wouldn’t commit any offence while on bail.

19
 INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 1 ODD SEM - AY- (2021-22)
KL COLLEGE OF LAW

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is humbly prayed that this honourable court may be pleased to:

1. Twin Conditions under section 439A of the Ozalan Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. which is intra-vires the Constitution of Ozala, should be remained upheld
2. Quantisa shouldn’t be released on bail

And pass any order, direction or relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit in the
interests of justice, equity and good conscience.
All of which is humbly prayed,

Counsels for the Petitioner.

20