LL.B.

V Term

LB-501
MOOT COURT, MOCK TRIAL AND INTERNSHIP

INTERNSHIP REPORT

Campus Law
Centre Faculty of
Law University of
Delhi

Submitted By: Name – Madan Mohan Chaubey

Section –
DI Roll No. - 21309806

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. No. Topic Page No.

1. (Part – A): Internship certificate 3

2. (Part – B): Day to day report 4-10

3. (Part – C): Drafts of the legal documents prepared during 11-24

the internship period

Annexure I: APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT OF

PARTIES UNDER ORDER I, RULE 10 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

Annexure II: APPLICATION FOR INSPECTION OF COURT FILE

Annexure III: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF BAIL UNDER

SECTION 437 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

Annexure IV: APPLICATION FOR THE GRANT

ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973

2
Internship Certificate

3
 (PART – B): DAY TO DAY REPORT

01.07.2023

On my first day of the internship, I have learned about how to access website of various courts
and extract relevant information from these websites like cause lists, Next date of hearing,
order sheets and business of all previous hearing of that particular case. I learned to access
district courts, high court and supreme court websites.

02.07.2023
Researched on proposition related to Maharashtra Rent Control Act (this case related to landlord
tenant disputes and Bombay High Court decided in the favour of landlord and we are
representing landlord in Supreme court). The proposition is “Landlord is the best judge of his
property, cannot be directed by tenant as to how to use it.”
Found following cases related to the above proposition:

1. Balwant Singh & Ors. V. Sudarshan Kumar and Ors.

MANU/SC/0087/2021 In this case important paras are given below
“11. On the above aspect, it is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate
for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the
landlord will be adequate. Insofar as the earlier eviction proceeding, the concerned
vacant shops under possession of the landlords were duly disclosed, but the case of the
landlord is that the premises/space under their possession is insufficient for the
proposed furniture business. On the age aspect, it is seen that the Respondents are also
senior citizens but that has not affected their desire to continue their business in the
tenanted premises. Therefore, age cannot be factored against the landlords in their
proposed business.

13. ……. According to us, the adequacy or otherwise of the space available with the
landlord for the business in mind is not for the tenant to dictate.”

2. Rishi Kumar Govil V. Maqsoodan and Ors. MANU/SC/7256/2007

“14. In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co. MANU/SC/0010/2000 :
[2000]1SCR77 it was held that it is the choice of the landlord to choose the place for the
business which is most suitable for him. He has complete freedom in the matter. In Gaya
Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava MANU/SC/0089/2001: [2001]1SCR923 it was held that
the need of the landlord is to be seen on the date of application for release. In Prativa
Devi (Smt.) v. T.V. Krishnan MANU/SC/0811/1987: (1996)5SCC353 it was held that the
landlord is the best Judge of his requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate the
landlord as to how and in what manner he should live.”
4
 .

03.07.2023

Observed proceedings at Saket District Court. The case was a Murder and we were appearing
for the convict. Took notes of the proceedingsand got to know the nuances of importance of
connecting points which lead to another act in acriminal case, test identification parade and
FSL report. At office, researched on Section 65-Bof the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and
leading cases pertaining to the same.

04.07.2023

Observed hearing at District Consumer Forum, ISBT Kashmere Gate. The consumer case
related to the PWD candidate with whom some accident happens at airport due to negligence
of the officials of the SpiceJet airlines and he has to gone under medical treatment and
suffered mental harassment due to it. We are representing the victim in this case. The court
asks us to file judgments to support the jurisdiction of this forum as accident does not happens
in the Delhi and nor there is any reg. office of the concerned airline in ambit of the forum.

05.07.2023

Observed hearing in Saket district court in case related to divorce matter in Court no. 507 in
which Hon’ble MM Nidhi Singh was sitting. We are representing the wife in this case and
respondent didn’t appear and a new advocate appear in the matter from the side of respondent
and he argued that he didn’t receive the certified copy and ask for the matter to be adjourned
and was granted by the court. The respondent was asked to appear on next date otherwise
BW to be issued against him. Also, observed arguments in case related to Domestic Violence
case in Court no. 506 in which Hon’ble MM Sangmitra was sitting.
After coming to office read files related to the above cases.

5
 06.06.2023

Observed proceedings in the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

07.07.2023

Observed proceedings in Saket District court. In our case which is related to the divorce and
domestic violence (we are representing the wife in this matter) the summons were not served
due to incomplete stamp and fresh summons were to be served so we are asked to file PF within
a week.

08.07.2023

Was asked to read section 138, 139 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 and to make
notes on the same. Later on, drafted 138 NI complaints and Demand Notices the Ma’am is on
the Berger Paints Pannel and representing the company in Saket District courts on regular basis.

10.07.2023

Researched about a company called “Braithwaite, Burn & Jessop Construction Company” on
MCA 21 website and researched about the status and learn to extract master data of the company.

11.07.2023

Drafted some complaints of 138 NI Act, 1881.

12.07.2023

Observed hearing of a matter online in Supreme Court. The landlord tenant dispute for which
research was done previously on 02.07.2023 the SLP of the tenant dismissed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.

13.07.2023

Observed hearing in Patiala house court. The case was related to road accident and filed against
the insurance company New India Insurance company.

6
 14.07.2023 to 16.07.2023 the office was closed due to the alert issued by the DDMA due to
raising water conditions due to rain.

17.07.2023

Drafted an Application for the Impleading the parties filed under O1R10 CPC, 1908. Attached as
Annexure I in this diary.

18.07.2023

On this day, I visited Saket District Court for some property matter. The matter was at the stage
of evidence. Here I witnessed chief examination and cross examination of witness.

In the process of examination-in-chief, we ask questions from our witness. Generally, the party
to a case is a prime witness as they can describe the events of the case properly. In
examination- in-chief, generally open-ended questions are asked from the witness to make a
story i.e. how, what, when happen etc. I witnessed examination-in-chief in two cases, one
family matter and other in property related.

After examination-in-chief is done, the opposite councel cross examines the witness. One thing
I observed during my internship is that most of the witnesses are tutored by the counsel. They
were prepared by their counsel generally a day before on the weak points of the case which
they think the opposite counsel will ask them in the court.

19.07.2023

On this day, I was assigned to do some research work on legal propositions for a civil matter. I
was also given some drafting work.

Later that day, I went to the Chamber in order to attend a scheduled client meeting. Client
meeting was related to a criminal case and our client was complainant in it. My task was to
observe the meeting and write down the information being provided by the client. I learned that
it is very important to hear the client patiently and if he is not able to present facts clearly, then
they should be asked questions related to the case. The questions should be such that they are
able to present a chronological picture of the whole case.

20.07.2023

7
Drafted 138 NI complaints and Demand Notices the Ma’am is on the Berger Paints Pannel and
representing the company in Saket District courts on regular basis.

Read OLA Consumer terms and conditions of use and also the OLA’s Driver terms and
conditions and got to know that the drivers are associated with the ANI Technology Pvt. Ltd. (it
is the parent company of OLA Cabs) not as employees but as principal-to-principal basis. It is
said in the user agreement that OLA will not be responsible for the acts and negligence of the
driver.

21.07.2023

On this day I read Divorce case related files in the Chamber and did research work on them
using SCC Online. I got to know about the Hindu Marriage Act sections that govern divorce in
India. Then, I was asked to go to Patiala House Court and see the proceeding of the court in one
of the matters.

22.07.2023

On this day, I visited Patiala House Court to attend Court proceedings in the complaint case
under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. I came to know that Sec 138 is quasi- criminal
in nature i.e. being a civil wrong, the criminal procedure code i.e. CrPC is followed to prove the
case.
Later that day, I visited High Court of Delhi where I witnessed the recording evidence before
Local Commissioner. I learnt that the evidences are produced, exhibited etc before the Local
Commissioner appointed by the High Court. The procedure is different from what I have
witnessed during my previous visits to the District Court.

24.07.2023

Observed hearing of a case related to divorce in the Saket court. We are representing the
husband and last opportunity was given the respondent husband for paying the maintenance
wife otherwise BW would be issued against him said by court.

Later on, drafted 138 NI complaints and Demand Notices. Thereafter, learned to file cases
online on the district court website. And then myself filed cases related to 138 NI online on the
website of the District court.

25.07.2023

8
Read case file related to an arbitration matter. The case was related to the dispute between a

9
company and TCIL (Telecommunications India Ltd. a government company) regarding the non-
payment for the work done by the company. The concerned company got tender for laying of
OFC (Optical Fiber Cables) in Uttarakhand.

26.07.2023

Research on the case related to the jurisdictional aspect under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as
which forum has the jurisdiction to try the case when the services are availed by online mode.

Found the following case related to the proposition:

Spice jet Ltd. V. Ranju Aery MANU/CF/0084/2017

The complainant had purchased airline tickets online through yatra.com in order to go. The
connecting flight was booked through SpiceJet, and all tickets were purchased in Chandigarh
by the complainant. After collecting their boarding papers, the complainant and her family
members discovered that the connecting flight had been cancelled. SpiceJet made no alternate
plans. The complainant and her family members missed the bus back to Chandigarh since they
arrived in New Delhi later than scheduled.

SpiceJet claimed that the District Forum in Chandigarh lacked territorial jurisdiction because the
company’s headquarters were in Gurugram. The National Commission agreed with the State
Commission that part of the cause of action originated in Chandigarh since ordering tickets
online constitutes a contract, which the complainant acknowledged over the internet at her
house. The National Commission decided that there was no lack of jurisdiction in the orders
issued. The same orders were also upheld by the Supreme Court.

Relevant paras of the case are given below:

“14. In so far as the issue of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the State Commission have
aptly brought out in the impugned order that part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh,
because with booking of the travel tickets on the internet, the acceptance of the contract was
received by the complainant through internet at his place of business/residence. We have no
reasons to differ with the view taken by the State Commission that the State Commission at
Chandigarh had the territorial jurisdiction to handle the complaint.

16. It is held, therefore, that there is no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the
orders passed by the fora below and the same are ordered to be confirmed.”

27.07.2023

Drafted application for inspection of the court file of a case. Attached as Annexure II in this
diary.
10
28.07.2023
Drafted application for grant of bail under section 437 and for anticipatory bail under section
438 of code of criminal procedure, 1973 attached as Annexure III and Annexure IV
respectively in this Diary.

Later on, Research on the cases related to the jurisdiction of the consumer forum in MACT
matters.
Found the following judgment of the NCDRC
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & 2 Ors. V. Nazma W/o Gani Mohammad (2015
SCC OnLine NCDRC 1579)

“As the legality of the order is questioned only on legal grounds and the factum of the
deceased suffering injuries and the ownership of the vehicle is not in dispute, we deem it
unnecessary to state the facts. The grounds of challenge are: (i) the order made in First Appeal
is cryptic and non-speaking and (ii) a Consumer Fora, under the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 (for short “the Act”) has no jurisdiction to entertain the claims arising out of Motor
vehicle accidents, as such claims are to be dealt with by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
In support of the submission that a Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain
such complaints, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner Corporation has relied
upon two orders, both dated 9.5.2014 in Revision Petitions No. 2843/2012 and 2551/2010.
While dealing with the question at issue, a Coordinate Bench of this Commission, relying upon
the decision of the Supreme court in Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v.
Consumer Protection Council-(1995) 2 SCC 479, has come to the conclusion that Consumer
Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint arising out of a fatal accident while
travelling in the vehicle. We may note that in the said two decisions, the opposite party was
again the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, the Petitioner herein.

Having carefully perused the aforestated two orders and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in The Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation (supra), we are of the view that
the Complaint filed by the Respondent under the Act was not maintainable.”

11
 (PART – C): DRAFTS OF THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS
PREPARED DURING THE INTERNSHIP PERIOD

CIVIL DRAFTS

ANNEXURE-I

BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON, LD. PO

(MACT-NEW DELHI), PATIALA
HOUSE COURT, DELHI
MACT NO. 178 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
……………………………….. ….PETITIONER
VERSUS
…………………. ….RESPONDENT
N.D.O.H: -
06.09.2023 APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT OF “THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.” AS RESPONDENT NO. 3 UNDER ORDER I, RULE 10 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
MOST REPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present case is sub judice and the matter is listed for adjudication before this
Hon’ble court on 06.09.2023.
2. That on the previous date of hearing, it came to our notice that the Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. is a necessary party to this suit.
3. That at the time of the accident and filing of the present petition, the petitioner was
unaware of the insurance company (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) of the vehicle of
the respondent no. 1 and 2 and it is only after the filing of the DAR by the police the
petitioner came to know about the insurance company and inadvertently thereafter the
petitioner mistakenly failed to implead “Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.” as party to
the suit.
4. That the petitioner is filing this application for impleading the Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. as respondent no. 3 in this matter alongwith the amended memo of parties
annexed herewith as Annexure A.
5. That the present application is bona fide and in the interest of justice and irreparable
harm and injury will be caused to the petitioner of the genuine mistake is not corrected.
12
 PRAYER
Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this hon’ble court may please to:
1. Implead Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as respondent no. 3 in this case.
2. Pass any other order this hon’ble court may deems fit in the interest of justice.
Petitioner

THROUGH

ADVOCATE
DATE: COUNSEL FOR THE PETITONER
PLACE: D-89, LGF, EAST OF KAILASH,
NEW DELHI- 110065

13
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON, LD. PO
(MACT-NEW DELHI), PATIALA
HOUSE COURT, DELHI
MACT NO. 178 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
…………… ….PETITIONER
VERSUS
ABC & ANR. ….RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT
I, Rajender Kumar Anand, s/o Sh. Gopi Chand Anand, r/o F-4, Gautam Nagar. New Delhi -
110049, the deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the Claimant/Petitioner in the above-mentioned petition and being well

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, I am competent to swear this
affidavit.
2. That the accompanying application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been drafted by my
counsel under my instructions and the contents of the same have been read over to me
and the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at eh New Delhi on this day of , 2023 that the contents of my

above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and nothing material
has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

14
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON, LD. PO
(MACT-NEW DELHI), PATIALA
HOUSE COURT, DELHI
MACT NO. 178 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
……………………………. ….PETITIONER
VERSUS
……….. & ANR. ….RESPONDENTS

AMENDED MEMO OF PARTIES

………………………………
………………………………
R/o F-4, GAUTAM NAGAR,
NEW DELHI- 110049 …PETITIONER
VERSUS

1. ……………….
R/o M-95,
PRITHVIRAJ LANE,
KHAN MARKET,
DELHI (DRIVER/RESPONDENT
NO.1)

2. …………..

R/o M-95,
PRITHVIRAJ LANE,
KHAN MARKET,
DELHI (OWNER/RESPONDENT
NO. 2)

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

LTD. SUNLIGHT INSURANCE BUILDING,
1/28 ASAF ALI ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110002 (INSURANCE CO./ RESPONDENT NO. 3)
15
 PETITIONER
THROUGH

ADVOCATE
DATE: COUNSEL FOR THE PETITONER
PLACE: D-89, LGF, EAST OF KAILASH,
NEW DELHI- 110065

16
 ANNEXURE-II

BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON, LD. PO

(MACT-NEW DELHI), PATIALA
HOUSE COURT, DELHI
MACT NO. 147 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
………………… ….PETITIONER
VERSUS
………. & ANR. ….RESPONDENT

APPLICATION FOR INSPECTION OF FILE

MOST REPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present case is sub judice and the matter is listed for adjudication before this
Hon’ble court on 06.09.2023.
2. That I am the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel wants to inspect the court file
in this matter.
3. That the present application is bona fide and in the interest of justice.

PRAYER
1. It is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to allow the counsel for
the Petitioner to inspect the court file.
2. Pass any other order as the court may deems fit in the interest of justice.

Petitione
Through r
Advocate
Counsel for the Petitioner
Place: D-89, LGF, East of Kailash,
Dated: New Delhi-110065
abc@outlook.com

17
 CRIMINAL DRAFT

ANNEXURE-III

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW

DELHI BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

Saleem Khan
S/o

R/o................................................................................................................................Applicant

VERSUS

STATE.......................................................................................................................Respondent

FIR NO.

U/S

POLICE STATION

APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF BAIL UNDER SECTION 437 OF CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

Most Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the accused above named was arrested by the police on and is in judicial custody
since then. It is alleged that on, the accused was suspiciously walking on Bhiku Ram
Jain Marg – Rajpur Road, Block BGS, Kamla Nehru Ridge, Civil Lines, New Delhi
when the police apprehended him, conducted the search and recovered 10 gms. of
cocaine from his pocket.
2. That the accused has been falsely implicated in the instant case and he has nothing to
do with the alleged offence.
3. That nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused or at his instance and
the so called case property has been planted upon the accused.

18
 4. That the accused is a law abiding citizen and belongs to a very respectable family. He
has never indulged in any illegal activities and commands respect and admiration his
locality.
5. That on , the accused found some persons selling cocaine near Sai Mandir, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi. The accused immediately reported the matter to police as the result
of which police also arrested some of the persons. Since that time, those persons who
were arrested at the instance of the accused, were threatening the accused to falsely
implicate him in a criminal case in collusion with police. The accused made a
complaintin this regard to the Dy. Commissioner of Police.
6. That after the said complaint, the accused was called by the Vigilance Department,
Delhi Police who enquired into his complaint.
7. That it is unimaginable that the accused who made a complaint against the sellers of
cocaine, would himself indulge in such activities.
8. That the accused is a permanent resident of Delhi and there are no chances of his
absconding in case he is released on bail.
9. That there is no chance of the accused absconding or tempering with the prosecution
evidence in the event of release on bail.
10. That the accused undertakes to join the investigation as and when directed to do so.
11. That the accused is not a previous convict and has not been involved in any case of
this nature except the present case.
12. That the present case is a result of clear manipulation by the police.
13. That the accused from all accounts is an innocent person.

PRAYER:

It is therefore respectfully prayed that the accused may kindly be released on bail during
the pendency of this case.

APPLICANT

PLACE: THROUGH

DATE: ADVOCATE

19
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW
DELHI BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

S/o

R/o................................................................................................................................Applicant

VERSUS

STATE.......................................................................................................................Respondent

FIR NO.

U/S

POLICE STATION

AFFIDAVIT

Affidavit of Shri , aged about years, s/o r/o

, PS District .

I, the deponent above named do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

1. That the deponent is the pairokar of the applicant and as such he is fully acquainted with
the facts of the case deposed to below.

2. That the contents of the aforesaid bail application are true and correct to the best
knowledge and belief of the deponent.

3. That no other bail application of any kind on behalf of the applicant has ever been filed in
the aforesaid case either in this Court or before any other Court.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

20
Verified on this day of …………, 2023 at New Delhi that the contents of the above said
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and information and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

Supported by Vakalatnama, duly attested by the Jail Authorities.

21
 ANNEXURE-IV

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE (DISTRICT CENTRAL),

DELHI TIS HAZARI COURT DELHI
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

S/o

R/o................................................................................................................................Applicant

VERSUS

STATE.......................................................................................................................Respondent

FIR NO.

U/S

POLICE STATION

APPLICATION FOR THE GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER

SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

Most Respectfully Showeth:

1. That the Applicant is a boy aged 24 years residing at , Delhi. He is also a
Director of M/s. XYZ Ltd. which is a very leading company engaged in the
manufacture of electrical appliances.
2. The Applicant is a very respectable person of his locality and is a peace loving citizen.
3. That the Applicant was on friendly terms with Miss Y major daughter of the
Complainant. However, the relationship of the Applicant with Miss Y was not liked
by her family members so much so that they had stopped Y from meeting the
Applicant and had threatened her that in case she meet the Applicant, they will
implicate the
22
 Applicant in some false criminal case.

4. That Miss. Y had also written number of letters to the Applicant calling upon him to
marry her as she had feared that her family members may sabotage her relationship
with the Applicant, which shows that family members of Miss. Y were deadly against
the Applicant and were looking for some opportunity to falsely implicated him in
somefalse criminal case in order to pressurize him to severe his relationship with Y.

5. That on, the Applicant had gone to meet his friend, who is residing in the
neighbourhood of Miss Y. When the Applicant reached the house of his friend, he
was suddenly attacked by father, uncle and brother of Miss Y as a result of which he
fell down and sustained abrasion/injuries. The Applicant’s friend came to the rescue
of the Applicant and with great difficulty; the Applicant was saved from the clutches
of Miss Y’s family members by other neighbours and passers-by.
6. That the police has registered a false FIR against the Applicant. A bare perusal of the
said FIR reveals that the brother of Miss Y attacked the Applicant and not vice-versa.
As a matter of fact, the aggressor has manipulated with the police and has falsely
implicated the Applicant. The Applicant is in fact the victim at the hands of the
Complainants who have conspired with the police and got this case registered against
them.
7. That the FIR registered against the Applicant is absolutely false and incorrect. The
Applicant is not at all involved in the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated
by the police.
8. That the Applicant apprehends that he may be arrested in pursuance of the aforesaid
false and fictitious complaint.
9. That the police officials have visited the premises of the Applicant in his absence and
there is every likelihood of his being arrested in the instant case.
10. That the Applicant undertakes to join the investigation as and when directed to do so.
11. That the Applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi and there is no chance of his
absconding in case he is granted anticipatory bail.
12. That the Applicant has never been involved in any criminal case except the present one.

PRAYER:

It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that the Applicant be released on bail in the event
of his arrest and appropriate directions in this regard may please be sent to the concerned
Investigating officer/S.H.O. Any other order/orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem

23
 fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of this case may also be passed.

APPLICANT

PLACE: THROUGH

DATE: ADVOCATE

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE (DISTRICT CENTRAL),

DELHI TIS HAZARI COURT DELHI
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

S/o

R/o................................................................................................................................Applicant

VERSUS

STATE.......................................................................................................................Respondent

FIR NO.

U/S

POLICE STATION

AFFIDAVIT

I, s/o , aged about 24 years, r/o , do hereby solemnly

affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the Applicant in the abovementioned matter which has been drafted by my
counsel under my instructions.
2. That the facts and circumstances are true to my knowledge and the grounds for the
Anticipatory Bail Application has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions.
The last para is the prayer to the Hon’ble Court.
24
 3. That I have not preferred any similar or other petition in the abovementioned matter
before this Hon’ble Court or any other Court.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified on this the day of....................., 2023 at New Delhi that the contents of the above said
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and information and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

25