IN THE COURT OF LD.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.:________/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

MAJ. KUMAR GAURAV … Petitioner/Applicant

VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI … Respondent

P.S.: Anand Vihar/I.O.: Neetu

F.I.R. No.: 0165 of 2021
Under Section: 376 IPC

INDEX

Sr. No. Particulars Page Nos.

1. Memo of Parties

2. Application for Anticipatory bail u/s

438 CrPC on behalf of the Applicant
with Affidavit.

3. Annexure A1:
Copy of FIR No. 165 dated 28.07.2021
registered at Anand Vihar Police Station

4. Annexure A2:
Copy of S. 41A CrPC Notice dated
29.07.2021

5. Annexure A3:
Copy of the Transcript of Whatsapp
Conversation between Surabhi Mishra
and the Complainant

6. Annexure A4:
 Copy of screenshots of Whatsapp
Conversations between the Applicant
and Complainant dated 02.07.2021

7. Application for interim-stay of arrest

during pendency of the present
application for anticipatory bail.

8. Vakalatnama

THROUGH

(RAJ KAMAL)
(SAKSHI SINGH) (ANURAG CHANDRA)

COUNSELS FOR THE APPLICANT

AVYAY LEGAL
ADVOCATES & CONSULTANTS
D-11, UGF, JUNGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI-110014
PH: 9873748646/ RAJKAMAL.ADV@GMAIL.COM
ENR. NO. D-906/2006 & D-6110/2018

NEW DELHI
FILED ON:
 IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO.:______/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

MAJ. KUMAR GAURAV … Petitioner/Applicant

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI … Respondent

MEMO OF PARTIES
Maj. Kumar Gaurav
Gajadhar Choudhary Lane,
Saraiya Ganj, Saraiya,
Sadullahpur, Muzaffarpur,
Bihar – 842001 … Petitioner/Applicant

VERSUS
State of NCT of Delhi
Through SHO P.S. Anand Vihar,
New Delhi-110092 … Respondent

THROUGH
(RAJ KAMAL)
(SAKSHI SINGH) (ANURAG CHANDRA)
COUNSELS FOR THE APPLICANT
AVYAY LEGAL
ADVOCATES & CONSULTANTS
D-11, UGF, JUNGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI-110014
PH: 9873748646/ RAJKAMAL.ADV@GMAIL.COM
ENR. NO. D-906/2006 & D-6110/2018

NEW DELHI
FILED ON:
 IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO.:______/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

KUMAR GAURAV … Petitioner/Applicant

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI … Respondent

P.S.: Anand Vihar I.O.: Neetu

F.I.R. No.: 0165 of 2021
Under Section: 376 IPC

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 438 OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 FOR GRANT OF
ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE APPLICANT

Most Respectfully Sheweth :

1. The Applicant herein is serving the Indian Army in the
position of a Major and has earned an unblemished
reputation in his 6.5 years of service. The Applicant was
commissioned in the Indian Army in 2014 after graduating
from the National Defence Academy. The Applicant has
for the past 2.5 years been posted in a counter-insurgency
area at Senapati District, Manipur, where he presently
resides.

2. It is submitted that a factually incorrect and misplaced

complaint has been filed against the Applicant with PS
Anand Vihar, alleging therein the commission of offence
 of rape by the Applicant on the fraudulent pretext of
marriage. It is alleged in the said complaint that the
Applicant promised to marry the complainant, Ms. Neha
Sharma, after a courtship period of about a year, got
engaged in the presence of family members and
subsequently, after engaging in sexual relations, broke off
the engagement. The present Applicant learnt about this
complaint after he was contacted by S.I. Neetu of Anand
Vihar Police Station who has directed him to appear in
connection with the complaint. A copy of the FIR and S.
41A CrPC Notice as received by the Applicant is hereby
attached and annexed as Annexure A1 and Annexure A2
respectively.

3. It is submitted that the Applicant met Ms. Neha Sharma

(hereinafter “the Complainant”) on Facebook in
December 2018, when the Applicant was posted in
Hyderabad. The Applicant and the Complainant thereafter
started chatting and exchanged numbers. They remained in
touch over the phone even as the Applicant moved base to
a counter-insurgency area in Manipur, where he is
currently posted. Finally, in April 2019, the Complainant
over a call expressed an intent to get involved in a long-
distance relationship with the Applicant. Both persons
agreed to meet in June 2019 in Delhi when the Applicant
could avail a holiday and travel to meet the Complainant.
On 25th June 2019, the Complainant willingly came to
meet the Applicant for the first time for a movie date and
later hung out at a friend’s place in Saket. During his stay,
the Applicant and the Complainant went out several times,
and both consensually got into a relationship.
4. That within 6 months of being in a relationship, the
Complainant started making exorbitant demands, despite
being aware of the limited means of the Applicant. In
February 2020, the Complainant asked the Applicant to
gift her an iPhone as a Valentine’s Day present. The
Applicant out of love for the Complainant obliged and
bought her an iPhone on EMI using two of his credit cards.
Thereafter, the Applicant made a trip to Delhi to celebrate
Valentine’s Day with the Complainant. That whenever the
Applicant visited Delhi, he stayed at the Leela Ambience,
Karkardooma.

5. That as the Complainant and the Applicant grew to like

each other, both parties decided to get married despite the
differences between the families. However, on 21st
February 2020, the Applicant and the Complainant were
engaged ceremoniously in the presence of their family
members at Jashn Banquet Hall, Shahdara. The Applicant
spent around Rs. 3 lacs (Rupees Three Lacs Only) of his
savings on rings and gifts for the Complainant.

6. That the Applicant traveled to Delhi in March 2020,

especially to meet the Complainant and booked a stay at
the Leela Ambience, Karkardooma from 17th to 19th March
2020. The Complainant and Applicant would meet on a
daily basis and spent considerable time together. The
Complainant would meet the Applicant at the metro station
and go together to the movies. The Complainant insisted
that the Applicant takes her shopping. That on every visit,
the Applicant would insist on meeting the would be in –
laws of the Applicant but some pretext or another, the
 Complainant would insist on meeting the Applicant alone.
The Complainant would never disclose to her family that
the Applicant was in Delhi on the pretext that they would
not have any privacy if she told her parents that he was in
Delhi. The Applicant thought that the Complainant was
exhibiting odd, secretive behaviour but chose not to raise
any issues on this short trip as it would lead to unnecessary
confrontation between the couple.

7. The Applicant again traveled to Delhi in September 2020

at the instance of the Complainant to celebrate her birthday
on 4th September 2020. The Complainant demanded an
expensive Apple gadget for her birthday gift and the
Applicant again obliged. When the Applicant asked to
meet the Complainant’s parents, he was informed that they
were not aware of his visit to Delhi. However, the
Complainant continued to make plans with the Applicant
and spent time together during his stay from 3-6th
September 2020. The Applicant stayed at the Leela
Ambience Hotel, Karkardooma. When the Applicant
posted a picture with the Complainant on Whatsapp, the
Complainant informed him that the mother of the
Complainant did not approve and had scolded her. The
Complainant also asked him to remove the picture even as
both parties were engaged to be married. It appeared to the
case that the Complainant did not want to be publicly seen
or associated with the Applicant.

8. The Applicant as part of his new posting got transferred to

the Indo-China border in October 2020 and soon after,
issues started cropping up between them, as the Applicant
 could not stay in regular touch with the Complainant
owing to the nature and requirements of his job. The
Applicant was posted in a no-network zone in Arunachal
Pradesh and had no means to stay in regular touch with the
Complainant. The Applicant came to know that in his
absence, the Complainant got in touch with his friends and
had made several derogatory and untoward remarks about
the Applicant, his caste, his family, their financial status
and living standard, among other things. In one of such
conversations, the Complainant remarked that the
Applicant was foolish to provide any financial help to his
sister and his mother and that his family and friends were
mooching off him. The transcripts of these Whatsapp chats
with a friend of the Applicant, Surabhi Mishra, showcasing
the humiliating and hurtful comments made by the
Complainant are attached herewith and marked as
Annexure A3.

9. That the Complainant left no stone unturned in publicly

mistreating the Applicant and his family and making a
public spectacle out of a personal relationship. The
Complainant after every argument would reach out to the
friends of the Applicant and seek mediation. The
Complainant during several such conversations made
multiple remarks that she was not agreeable to marry the
Applicant under any circumstance, as is evident from the
chats marked as Annexure A3. The Applicant even
confronted the Complainant and sought explanation for
such erratic and shameful behaviour.
10. On the passing of the Applicant’s step-father on 04th
February, 2021, the Complainant visited the Applicant’s
home in Bihar along with her family on 13 th February
2021; the Complainant’s parents did not spare the occasion
to insult and ridicule the Applicant’s mother in front of
their relatives and friends. After being subject to continued
humiliation and torture at the hands of the Complainant,
the Applicant chose to call off the wedding and the
engagement on 16th February 2021, solely due to the
dissension and discord between the families of the
Applicant and the Complainant. The Complainant and her
family showed no kindness to the family of the Applicant,
as he belongs to the SC community while the Complainant
is a Brahmin and would avail every occasion to demean
the Applicant and his family.

11. That after the engagement was called off, the Complainant
again reached out to the friends of the Applicant and
started spreading false narratives that she was under
treatment for mental trauma at AIIMS, solely with the
purpose of manipulating and blackmailing the Applicant.
The Applicant out of his goodness of his heart inquired
about the health of the Complainant and sought the
medical records or any receipts to indicate that she was
under treatment at AIIMS. However, after months of
insistence, the Complaint failed to adduce any records
pertaining to the same. A copy of the screenshots of the
Whatsapp conversation reflecting the same is attached
herewith and marked as Annexure A4.
12. As the Applicant failed to succumb to the pressure tactics
of the Complainant, the Complainant threatened the
Applicant with severe consequences that she will commit
suicide if the Applicant does not marry her and also, put
the blame on him, or file a false case against him. Hearing
about the plight of her mental health through his friends
and colleagues, the Applicant attempted to reconcile with
the Complainant in early May 2021 despite all tribulations
and was agreeable to marry her. The Complainant agreed
to travel to Manipur for a court marriage, and the
Applicant accordingly planned the arrangements.
However, just a day before travel, the Complainant
informed the Applicant that her mother came to find out
about her plans to elope, and she would not be able to
come for the court marriage, as the mother of the
Complainant was not willing to bless the couple.

13. Towards the end of June 2021, the Applicant decided to

break off all ties with the Complainant as the relationship
with the Complainant had taken a mental and emotional
toll, and a union between the families was not possible as
all attempts to reconciliate had failed. The last
conversation that happened between parties was with
regards to medical documents sought by the Applicant of
the alleged mental trauma & her treatment at AIIMS Delhi.
The Applicant and his friends made all possible attempts to
arrive at a common ground for the couple to be reunited
and married. However, the Complainant just continued to
act immaturely and even her family completely refused to
act with any ounce of civility or consideration.
14. That the Complainant subsequently moved to file a
complaint under Section 376 IPC before Anand Vihar
Police Station alleging rape by the Applicant. The
Complaint filed by the ex-fiancé of the Applicant is ridden
with vicious and dishonest motives to malign the
reputation and goodwill of the Applicant that the Applicant
has achieved in the society through years of study, hard
work and service to this country.

15. That it is submitted that in light of the said factually

misplaced and vexatious complaint which has been filed
against the Applicant at Anand Vihar Police Station, the
Applicant has reasonable apprehension of his arrest, even
as he is willing to join the enquiry /investigation as may be
required, and undertakes to cooperate with the
investigation/enquiry and as such, the present Applicant is
preferring the instant the Anticipatory Bail Application u/s
438 Cr.P.C. before this Hon’ble Court, for the grant of
anticipatory bail, inter-alia on the following grounds:

GROUNDS OF BAIL:

A. Because the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely

implicated in the above-mentioned case by the
Complainant to blackmail, humiliate and mentally torture
the Applicant, and/or coerce him into marrying the
Complainant by using wrongful means.

B. Because this a classic case of abuse of the process of law,

where the rape laws are being misused by the Complainant
for arm-twisting the Applicant and wage a personal
 vendetta against him. At the outset, it is stated that
Applicant in no manner intends to cause any disrepute or
disgrace to the Complainant, however, he is now
constrained to bring in the correct and true facts on record
for his defence against such this frivolous and fictitious
complaint filed by the Complainant.

C. Because a bare perusal of the facts on record reveals that

the Complainant is an extremely money-minded individual
and has only been manipulating the Applicant for
monetary gains. The conversations between the friends of
the Applicant and the Complainant spell out the thread of
lies and fabrications the Complainant has been spreading
around, thereby revealing the true nature and motives of
the Complainant. The Complainant has over the course of
the past year exhibited a fragile mental state and
inconsistent behaviour, which can be gauged from the
several conversations as annexed to this Application. It is
also evident that the Complainant aimed to isolate the
Applicant from his family, including his mother and his
sister, and sought to wrongfully gain from the hard-earned
money of the Applicant, as she is currently unemployed
and enrolled in a long distance course since 2019.

D. Because as admitted by the Complainant during her

interactions with Surabhi, she was in consensual
relationship. It might not be the case that the relationship
was in fact a happy one but at any given time, the
Complainant was free to exercise her will and break off the
relationship or the engagement. The Complainant did not
 raise any protest against the nature of the relationship and
continued to meet with the Applicant every few months
and benefited greatly from it up until the engagement was
called off in February 2021.

E. Because the intention of this frivolous complaint is only to

intimidate the Applicant and holds no merit whatsoever.
The Complainant only brought such baseless allegations as
an after-thought after all the manipulative and pressure
tactics had failed. The Complaint had categorically
threatened to wreak havoc in the personal and professional
life of the Applicant if her wishes and demands were not
fulfilled.

F. Because the complaint only makes vague allegations

against the Applicant; there is no evidence of the alleged
forcible sexual relationship. In fact, the Complainant was
dating the Applicant for almost a year before getting
engaged to the Applicant. During the course of the
relationship, the Applicant traveled all the way from
Manipur only to meet the Complainant and celebrated
important occasions, including her birthday, and the
Complainant never raised any objections. The
Complainant consciously came to spend the day with the
Applicant during his stay in Delhi on several occasions and
chose to hide it from her parents time and again. It cannot
be said that at any point, there was a guarantee that such a
relationship would materialize into marriage, however, the
Complainant continued to have a relationship with the
Applicant. Moreover, the Complainant and the Applicant
 had planned to have a court marriage, the arrangements
and bookings for which were made by the Applicant for
June 2021, however, the Complainant at the last minute
got cold feet and refused to travel.

G. Because it is not the case of the Complainant that she was

coerced, threatened, or intimidated into having any relation
with the Applicant during their courtship or relationship.
The Complainant remained in a consensual relationship
with the Applicant out of her own volition and derived
monetary benefits from it as well. The Complainant on
several occasions raised demands for expensive gadgets
clothes, all of which was duly met with by the Applicant.

H. Because the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Rohit Chauhan

v. State NCT of Delhi, BAIL APPLN. 311/2013 rightly
found that,
“…Many of the cases are being reported by those
women who have consensual physical relationship
with a man but when the relationship breaks due to
one or the other reason, the women use the law as a
weapon for vengeance and personal vendetta to
extort money and sometimes even to force the boy to
get married to her. Out of anger and frustration,
they tend to convert such consensual sex as an
incident of rape, defeating the very purpose of the
provision. There is a clear demarcation between
rape and consensual sex and in cases where such
controversies are involved, the court must very
cautiously examine the intentions of both the
 individuals involved and to check if even the girl on
the other hand is genuine or had malafide motives.
Cases like these not only make mockery of the
sacred institution of marriage but also inflate the
statistics of rape cases which further deprecates our
own society.”

I. Because the factual matrix of the case of the Applicant and

the Complainant squarely falls within such category of
false and frivolous cases. The relationship between the
parties was in the knowledge of both the families and the
family of the Complainant did not approve of their union
as the Applicant belongs to the SC community.

J. Because the engagement ceremony was performed in the

presence and with the involvement of both the parties, but
as the tensions developed between the families along caste
lines and personal differences, the marriage was called off
due to the continued harassment and ridicule faced by the
Applicant and his family at the hands of the Complainant
and her family. It is clear that this marriage was never
agreeable to the mother of the Complainant, yet the
Complainant continued to play with the emotions of the
Applicant months on end. Long after the engagement was
called off, the Complainant remained in touch with the
younger brother of the Applicant, only to extract
information from him and use it against the Applicant to
blackmail him in any manner possible. These are not the
actions of a prudent and rational individual.
K. Because the chats between the Complainant and a friend of
the Applicant, namely Surabhi Mishra, revealed the
following :-

Sr.No. Date & Time Particulars

1. 12/7/20, 11:45 - Neha: … eske ghr wale kha
jayegay bhot tez h bai bhot
jyda
2. 12/7/20, 11:46 - Neha: Seriously ghatiya log
h
3. 12/8/20, 11:42 - Neha: … Etne ehsaan khor
log bhen or maa wo log b Nhe
dekh rahe ye crore pati h kya
etna daanveer Karan kyu Banta
h ye
4. 1/16/21, 00:08 - Neha: Meri mummy papa
bolte Nhe k chalo ladki Beyti h
unki
5. 1/16/21, 00:27 - Neha: Parso meri or gauarv
ki bhot ladai hue
1/16/21, 00:28 - Neha: Bhot jyda k Maine Bol
Diya muhje shadi Nhe krni
tere se tu apni didi ki shadi kra
family ko dekh
6. 1/17/21, 22:59 - Neha: Bhaad mey jaye
1/17/21, 22:59 - Neha: Bihar mey kray shadi
7. 1/20/21, 23:27 - Neha: Jalil logo…
8. 1/20/21, 23:33 - Neha: Meri bhot he bdi galti
ho gye Sahi mey eske sth
 relationship mey agye
1/20/21, 23:34 - Neha: Or sbse bdi galti shadi
ka bola esko
9. 1/21/21, 09:50 - Neha: Apne ye tk btaya ki
usko tere parents k sth rhne
mey prblm hai

L. Because of the nature of the comments made by the

Complainant and the threats issued by the Complainant to
the Applicant clearly reflect her mental state and ulterior
motives. The Applicant had apprehended that the family of
the Complainant may induce and provoke her to file a
bogus complaint against him in order to force him into
marriage and accordingly, relayed his concerns to the
Office In-charge, Imphal vide a letter dated 07.07.2021.

M. Because the Complainant has filed the present complaint

only to subject the Applicant and his family to further the
torture and humiliation meted out to them repeatedly by
the Complainant and her family. Further, the Complainant
has continued to blackmail the Applicant and stated that
she will rescind the Complaint only if the Applicant agrees
to marry her, which evidently tantamount to coercion and
intimidation.

N. Because the Apex court in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar

vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2019 SC
327 and in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of
Maharashtra and another, (2019) 9 SCC 608 arising out
 of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in similar
circumstances where the relationship originated in a love
affair, developed over a period of time accompanied by
physical relations, consensual in nature, but the marriage
could not fructify because the parties belonged to different
castes and communities, quashed the proceedings.

O. Because apart from the concocted and frivolous oral

allegation of the Complainant, there is no other evidence
of the forcible sexual indulgence. It is falsely alleged that
the Complainant was forced to consume some illicit
substance through a pipe and that’s how the Applicant
established sexual relations for the first time. However, it
is also alleged that the Complainant returned the next day
to meet with the Applicant. It is alleged that the
predominant reason to agree for sexual intimacy was that
the Applicant referred to them as husband and wife as they
were already engaged. That the Complainant was forced to
succumb to sexual relations before marriage over the
course of their engagement period repeatedly over the
course of a few days. It is alleged that the Complainant
returned to her home every night, and visited the hotel for
three consecutive days between 17-19th March 2020. It is
further alleged that the Applicant subjected her to forced
relations during his visits to Delhi over the course of the
next 12 months. Because even assuming the allegations to
be correct for the sake of arguments and stoutly denying
the same, it is submitted that there is nothing to
demonstrate that without any scope for deliberation or
conscious thought, she succumbed to the allegedly forced
 sexual acts by the Applicant, or any psychological pressure
by the Applicant during this course. The Complainant
willingly continued to visit the Applicant during his stay at
the Leela Ambience, Karkardooma and went out regularly
on dates with him during his trips to Delhi. There is
nothing on record to indicate that she was of diminished
mental faculties or incapable of understanding the nature
and implications of the alleged acts. It cannot be said that
the prospect of the relationship failing had not entered her
mind even once; in fact, the Complainant herself made
multiple remarks during her conversations with Surabhi
that she was not going to marry the Applicant.

P. Because in the case of Robin Sethi v. State & Ors., Bail

Application No. 598/2012, the Delhi High Court has
rightly observed that,
“There is an old Jewish saying, if you are close
when you should be distant, you will be distant
when you should be close... Undoubtedly it is
responsibility, moral and ethical, both, on the part
of men not to exploit any woman by extending false
promise or through devious acts to force or induce
the girl for sexual relationship. But ultimately, it is
woman herself who is the protector of her own
body. Promise to marry may or may not
culminate into marriage. It is the prime
responsibility of the woman in the relationship or
even otherwise to protect her honour, dignity
and modesty. A woman should not throw herself to
 a man and indulge in promiscuity, becoming source
of hilarity.”

Q. Because the Complainant is fully aware that the complaint

filed by her is of such nature that irrespective of the
outcome, it will leave a permanent dent in the good
reputation earned by the Applicant through years of
service in the Indian Army and is likely to derail his career
in the Army.

R. Because, if even the complaint is taken at face value and

arguendo assumed to be true, there is no evidence to prima
facie indicate that the Applicant forged any romantic
relations on the false pretext of marrying the Complainant.
In any event, a false or fraudulent promise to marry could
at best be a case of breach of the promise to marry, for
which the accused can be held liable to pay damages under
civil law. In this regard, the Applicant relies on the case
decided by the Apex Court in Deelip Singh Vs. State of
Bihar, (2005)1 SCC 88.

S. Because while dealing with a similar case, the Apex Court

in Subash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr,
Criminal Appeal No 233 of 2021, reiterating the
position in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v State of
Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 held that every breach
of promise to marry cannot be held as a false promise. “To
establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should
have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of
giving it.”
T. Because the Applicant has made several attempts to
reconcile with the Complainant with an express intention
to marry her prior to the filing of the complaint. However,
the relations between the families have been permanently
and irrevocably strained due to the humiliation and
casteism meted out by the family of the Complainant
towards the family members of the Applicant, as the
Applicant belongs to the SC community and the
Complainant is a Brahmin.

U. Because the Applicant apprehends his arrest in relation to

the aforesaid complaint as the Police can any time register
a case against him after calling him to join investigation.

V. Because it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, AIR 2012 SC 830 that
deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment,
unless it is required to ensure attendance of the accused
during trial. The object of bail is to secure appearance of
the accused during trial. Detention in custody results in
causing grave hardship and hampers the ability of the
accused to prepare for his defence.

W. Because the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held in

Court on its Own Motion v. CBI, 2004[1] JCC
308(Delhi) that
“Arrest should always be avoided if the investigation
can be completed even otherwise, and the accused
gives full co-operation in completing the investigation.”
 Further, the petitioner does not fall into any category laid
down in the said judgment regarding the principles relating
to bail.

X. Because the Applicant undertakes to assist and join the

investigation and will be available for
enquiry/investigation as and when asked for by the
Investigating Authorities and is ready and willing to
comply with the conditions that may be imposed upon him
by this Hon’ble Court.

Y. Because there is no possibility of the Applicant tampering

with the evidence or of intimidating any witnesses, as the
Applicant is presently residing in Manipur, where he is
serving as a Major in the Indian Army.

Z. Because it is apprehended that if no protection from the

arrest is being granted to the Applicant in such a false case,
then his personal liberty and service might be jeopardized.

AA. Because if any adverse action is taken against the

Applicant on the basis of this fictitious complaint, the
Applicant will suffer irreparable loss, as it would harm the
service of the Applicant, and may cause him to lose his
position and standing in the Indian Army.

BB. Because as such, no incriminating circumstance is

disclosed against the Applicant. The Applicant has not
committed any offence at all and therefore, the Applicant
seeks protection against the unjust and patently false
accusations leveled against him by the Complainant.
CC. Because the Applicant craves the leave of this Hon’ble
Court to plea and urge any other further ground which may
be taken by the Applicant during the course of arguments
on/of the present application.

DD. That the Applicant undertakes that he has not filed any
other Application seeking similar relief arising from the
said matter before any other Court.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble

Court that, in view of the abovementioned facts and
circumstances of the preset matter, this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to:

(i) grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant-Major

Kumar Gaurav in FIR 165 of 2021 dt. 28.07.2021
u/s 376 IPC at P.S. Anand Vihar, thereby directing
the Applicant- Major Kumar Gaurav to be released
on bail, in the event of his arrest in FIR 165 of 2021,
subject to the compliance of the bail conditions
imposed by this Hon’ble Court;

(ii) any such other order or direction as may be deemed

just and proper by considering the facts &
circumstances of the case and in the interest of
Justice.
 THROUGH
(RAJ KAMAL)
(SAKSHI SINGH) (ANURAG CHANDRA)

COUNSELS FOR THE APPLICANT

AVYAY LEGAL
ADVOCATES & CONSULTANTS
D-11, UGF, JUNGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI-110014
PH: 9873748646/ RAJKAMAL.ADV@GMAIL.COM
ENR. NO. D-906/2006 & D-6110/2018

NEW DELHI
FILED ON:
 IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.:______/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

MAJ. KUMAR GAURAV … Petitioner/Applicant

VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI … Respondent

P.S.: Anand Vihar I.O.: Neetu

F.I.R. No.: 0165 of 2021
Under Section: 376 IPC

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM-STAY OF ARREST

DURING PENDENCY OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION
FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL.

Most respectfully sheweth:

1. That the Applicant has filed the present Application for

Anticipatory Bail u/s 438 CrPC. The entire contents of the
Bail Application are not narrated here for the sake of
brevity and conciseness and the averments of the bail
application may be read as part and parcel for the purpose
of the adjudication of the present Application.

2. That the Applicant is a law-abiding citizen of this country

and currently serving in the Indian Army in the position of
a Major. The Applicant is currently based in a remote
region Manipur, where he has been posted in a counter-
insurgency area since 2019.
3. That the FIR No. 165/21 has come to be filed against the
Applicant alleging rape under S. 376 IPC before the Anand
Vihar Police Station by the Complainant, Ms. Neha
Sharma, against which the Applicant has preferred an
anticipatory bail application before this Hon’ble Court.

4. That the Applicant and the Complainant were involved in a

consensual relationship since February 2019. The parties
were engaged to be married; however, the engagement
came to a humiliating end in February 2021 due to the
caste and class differences between the families.
Thereafter, the Applicant was threatened and blackmailed
by the Complainant that unless he agrees to marry her, he
will be roped in a false and frivolous case by the
Complainant.

5. That the Applicant submits that the allegations contained

in the FIR are utterly baseless and do not relay a case of an
offence under S. 376 IPC. The Complainant is arm-
twisting the law to her advantage to cause pain, suffering
and humiliation to the Applicant.

6. That in case an interim-stay of arrest is not granted, the

Applicant apprehends arrest on this basis of the
aforementioned complaint. The Applicant runs the risk of
being suspended from his service in the Indian Army,
which might cause him irreparable loss and damage to
reputation that he’s earned through years of hard-work and
service.
7. That the Applicant undertakes to assist and join the
investigation and will be available for
enquiry/investigation as and when asked for by the
Investigating Authorities and is ready and willing to
comply with the conditions that may be imposed upon him
by this Hon’ble Court.

8. There is no possibility of the Applicant tampering with the

evidence or of intimidating any witnesses, as the Applicant
is presently residing in Manipur, where he is serving as a
Major in the Indian Army.

9. That, the Applicant therefore prays that during the

pendency of this Application, an interim-stay of arrest
maybe kindly be granted in favour of the Applicant-Major
Kumar Gaurav in FIR 165 of 2021 at P.S. Anand Vihar, in
the interest of justice.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble

Court that, in view of the abovementioned facts and
circumstances of the preset matter, this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to:

(i) grant stay of arrest in favour of the Applicant-Major

Kumar Gaurav in FIR 165 of 2021 dt. 28.07.2021
u/s 376 IPC at P.S. Anand Vihar, during the
 pendency of the present petition before this Hon’ble
Court;

(ii) any such other order or direction as may be deemed

just and proper by considering the facts &
circumstances of the case and in the interest of
Justice.

THROUGH

(RAJ KAMAL)
(SAKSHI SINGH) (ANURAG CHANDRA)

COUNSELS FOR THE APPLICANT

AVYAY LEGAL
ADVOCATES & CONSULTANTS
D-11, UGF, JUNGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI-110014
PH: 9873748646/ RAJKAMAL.ADV@GMAIL.COM
ENR. NO. D-906/2006 & D-6110/2018

NEW DELHI
FILED ON: