IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2212 OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:
TARUN TEJPAL

APPLICANT
VERSUS

STATE & ANR

..RESPONDENTS
INDEX
SL.NO
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

PARTICULARS
Urgent Application
Notice of Motion
Memo of Parties
Synopsis
Bail Application alongwith Affidavit.

PAGES
A
B
C
D
1- 2

6.

7.

8.

9.

ANNEXURE A
A copy of the Statement made by the
Chief Minister of Goa on 21.11.2013 in
relation to the instant case.
ANNEXURE B
A copy of the Newspaper extract
published in Times of India dated
24.11.2013.
Application Under Section 482 of Cr.
P.C. on behalf of the Applicant for
exemption from filing Certified Copy of
Annexures, the true Typed Copy of
Dim/Proper Margin/ underline/Single
line
spacing
of
the
Annexures
alongwith Affidavit.
VAKALATNAMA
Filed By

12TH

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: 25.11.2013

(KARANJAWALA & CO)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2212 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF:
TARUN TEJPAL

APPLICANT
VERSUS

STATE & ANR

..RESPONDENTS

Urgent Application
To
The Registrar
High Court of Delhi
New Delhi
Sir,
Will you kindly treat the present accompanying application
as urgently. The grounds of urgency are:
Petition praying for urgent orders is prayed for

Filed By
Through:

12TH

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: 25.11.2013

(KARANJAWALA & CO)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO.

OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

TARUN TEJPAL

APPLICANT
VERSUS

STATE & ANR

..RESPONDENTS

Urgent Application
To
The Registrar
High Court of Delhi
New Delhi
NOTICE OF MOTION
Take notice that the accompanying application will be
listed before Court on 25.11.2013 at 10:30 a.m. in the
forenoon, or soon thereafter as may be convenient to the
Court.
Filed By
Through:

12TH

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: 25.11.2013

(KARANJAWALA & CO)

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI

BAIL APPLICATION NO.

OF 2013

MEMO OF PARTIES
SHRI TARUN TEJPAL
S/O INDERJIT TEJPAL
R/O 12, LINK ROAD,
JANGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI
APPLICANT
VERSUS

STATE
(THROUGH N.C.T. OF DELHI)
RESPONDENT 1
STATE OF GOA
Through DIG, CID
Through resident
Commissioner, GOA
RESPONDENT 2

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

REGD. AT PS DONA PAULA GOA]

FILED BY

12TH

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: 25.11.2013

(KARANJAWALA & CO)

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

SYNOPSIS AND LISTS OF DATES

The present accompanying application under order 438 Cr.
P C is preferred by the Applicant who is a citizen of India,
who is the erstwhile Editor-in-chief of the Tehelka, weekly
magazine, a journalist, Author and Publisher of immense
repute and is a foremost critic of right wing majoritarian
politics in the country. Throughout his career, the Applicant
has strived for transparency and accountability in public
life and has been an active campaigner against the
attempts to tarnish the secular fabric of country. The
instant accompanying application is filed seeking transfer
of investigation of the FIR No. 27 dated 22-11-2013 P.S CID
CB registered under sections 354A, 376, 376(2)(k) of IPC
as the applicant apprehends the instant investigation being
carried out by the Goa Police is patently tainted, unfair and
is being used as an opportunity to satisfy the long standing
grudge of the political executive against the works and
ideological stand of the present applicant, the same is
apparent by the actions of political executives of Goa and
those of his party who have unleashed their wrath of
vengeance

against

the

Applicant

in

garb

of

the

aforementioned FIR.
That the present FIR pertains to false and concocted
version of an intimate encounter between two individuals
which has been played out as allegations of sexual assault
against the Applicant and it is clear that the same are
being propelled as part of some malafide scheme.

The

examination of the CCTV footage of Hotel Hyatt, Goa for

the days of 7th and 8th of November, 2013 will not only
unveil the concoction but will also establish the innocence
of the Applicant/accused. The factum contained in the
aforementioned CCTV footage is well within the knowledge
of

the

present

Investigating

Agency,

however,

the

Investigating Agency, in its endeavor to please its political

masters is turning a blind eye to it in abrogation of its
primary duty, i.e. to conduct a fair investigation and reveal
the truth.
It is pertinent to note here that as the mandates contained
in Article 21 of the constitution places human rights and
dignity for human life at the highest pedestal and the
principle of an accused being presumed innocent till
proven

guilty,

forms

the

basis

of

Indian

criminal

jurisprudence and therefore it is obligatory that the

investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent and free
from incumbencies of any political interference to ensure
compliance with the basic rule of law.
The Applicant is no stranger to conducting various sting
operations against prominent members of the Political
Executive

of

the

BJP

and

openly

exposing

various

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

note that the Applicant exposed the then President of BJP
in 2001 for committing corruption in defence deals as a
result of which the party President as well as the then
Defence Minister of the then Union Government had to

resign. Furthermore, the Applicant was also instrumental in

exposing the role of prominent party leaders and the
manner in which BJP was attempting to buy over crucial
eye witnesses and scuttle fair investigation in the Gujarat
riot case.
It is well established that as per the cardinal principles of
criminal jurisprudence each and every person accused of a
crime is entitled to a free and fair investigation and any
interference in the investigation would eventually deprive a
person of his right to a fair trial. The Honble Supreme
Court has laid down time and time again that investigation
into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable
features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a
grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was
unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. The bias of
BJP against the Applicant is a well known fact and has
earlier been nastily manifested in a manner in which
Tehelka was targeted post its expose on corrupt defence
deals in 2001 and was forced to shut down operations for
over 3 years as well as many of its employees being
implicated in false criminal cases. The mannerism and the
scale in which BJP has unleashed the wrath of its
vengeance upon the Applicant in garb of the present FIR is
synonymous to the previous attempts of BJP to malign and
target the Applicant and the same is apparent by the
statements issued by various party leaders including the
present Chief Minister of Goa.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI , AT NEW DELHI

OF 2013

BAIL APPLICATION NO.

IN THE MATTER OF:SHRI TARUN TEJPAL
S/O INDERJIT TEJPAL
R/O 12, LINK ROAD,
JANGPURA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI

APPLICANT
VERSUS
STATE
(THROUGH N.C.T. OF DELHI)
RESPONDENT 1
STATE OF GOA
Through DIG, CID
Through resident
Commissioner, GOA
RESPONDENT 2

FIR NO 27/ 2013 DATED

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

APPLICATION SEEKING GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY

BAIL

UNDER

SECTION

438

OF

THE

CODE

OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 ON BEHALF OF THE

APPLICANT.

MOST RESPECTFULY SHOWETH:1.

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

the Tehelka, weekly magazine. The Applicant is a
journalist, Author and Publisher of immense global
repute. Throughout his career, the Applicant has

striven for transparency and accountability in public

life

and

is

the

foremost

critic

of

right

wing

majoritarian politics in the country. Throughout his

career, therefore, the Applicant has been an avid
campaigner against any attempts to tarnish the
secular fabric of the country.
2.

That the Applicant works and resides in New Delhi

with his family. He has been the managing editor of
the Tehelka group which has its principal office in
Greater Kailash, Part 2, New Delhi. The magazine is
also published from New Delhi. The enquiry in terms
of Vishakha Guidelines is also been conducted at
New Delhi.

3.

That

the

Applicant

alongwith

his

wife

Geetan

travelled from Delhi to Goa via Jaipur to attend an

annual conference by the name of THINK 2013,
hosted by Tehelka magazine, of which the Applicant
was then the Editor.
4.

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

the Applicant had a meeting with one of his female
colleagues. It is pertinent to note here that the said
encounter was only light hearted bantering. The
nature of the said meeting can be easily established
by a perusal of the CCTV footage of Hotel Hyatt, Goa,
which is within the knowledge and reach of Goa
Police but the same has been blatantly ignored by
the Investigating Agency. That on 08/11/2013 a
further

meeting

took

place

between

the

two

individuals but the same lasted for few seconds and

contained no incident which could constitute the
commission of a cognizable offence.
5.

That, subsequent to the aforementioned meeting,

the Applicant did not have any further interaction
with the above mentioned female colleague. The
colleague referred above, continued to party and was
completely normal and friendly all throughout her
stay in Goa. She was at every party and social event
through the conference and stayed out late into the
night.

6.

That there was not a single whisper from any corner

including above mentioned lady that any alleged
untoward occurrence had taken place during the
THINK fest.

7.

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

2013, the Applicant was informed by the Managing
Editor of Tehelka Magazine that she has received a
complaint alleging sexual harassment against him
from a female colleague. The Applicant was shocked
to learn about this false complaint of alleged
harassment and categorically refuted the same.

8.

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

the Applicant was first informed that a complaint has
been received against him. The alleged complaint is
clearly motivated, false and an afterthought.

9.

That the Applicant was shocked to learn of the

complaint and categorically and immediately refuted

each and every allegation. The Managing Editor,

however, refused to even listen to the Applicants
version and overrode him, telling him that she was
making the decision in Tehelkas interest.
10.

That the Applicant was told that a committee was

being set up in terms of the Vishakha guidelines as
have been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court
of India by the Managing Editor and was accordingly
advised to step down for a period of 6 months so that
an

unbiased

enquiry

could

be

conducted.

Accordingly, the Applicant stepped down for 6

months.
11.

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

and misleading accounts have been published by the
media to victimize the Applicant and, as part of the
pre-planned

conspiracy

to

falsely

implicate

the

Applicant.

The same has been blown out of

proportion by various groups with vested interests,

including topmost executives of Goa and even
national political leaders of one party. A copy of the
statement made by the CM of Goa on 21.11.2013 has
been attached hereto and marked as Annexure A.
12.

The bias with which the investigation in the instant

matter is propelled can best be illustrated from the
news report which appeared in Times of India dated
24.11.2013.A copy of the said news article dated
24.11.2013 is annexed here to and marked as
Annexure-B.

13.

That on 22.11.2013, the Applicant, through media

reports learnt of the registration of an FIR against
him by Goa Police under Sections 354A, 376, 376(2)
(k) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter
referred to as the IPC], which clearly is founded
solely on the basis of media reports of alleged
harassment by the Applicant.

14.

It is pertinent that no complaint has been made to

Respondent no. 2 either by the lady who is the
alleged victim or any member of her family. It is
unprecedented

that

the

state

should

make

complaint or register an FIR without the knowledge,

statement or consent of any aggrieved complainant
without any person with a grievance or with locus for
a preliminary inquiry in an alleged occurrence of this
nature. This is particularly significant as reference to
the alleged occurrence by the lady is after more than
10 days of the alleged incident which took place on
7th-8th of November 2013 and is belated and an
afterthought.
15.

That the Applicant has well founded reasons to

believe that the officers of Respondent No.2, in their
endeavor to appease their political masters are
turning a blind eye to crucial pieces of evidence
establishing the innocence of the present Applicant,
in abrogation of their primary duty, i.e. to conduct a
fair investigation and reveal the truth. Moreover, the
manner and the scale on which a particular political

party has unleashed the wrath of its vengeance upon

the Applicant in the garb of the present FIR is
synonymous with the previous attempts of the BJP to
malign and target the Applicant and the same is
apparent by the statements issued by various party
leaders. The wrath of leaders of the BJP, individuals
whom the Goa Police cannot antagonize, against the
Present Applicant, is best manifested from the
statements made by them demanding that the
Applicant should atone in jail. Some have even
alluded to Tehelkas first undercover expose
which resulted in the resignation of the then
BJP President, Bangaru Laxman, suggesting it
was now payback time.
16.

That, in light of the aforementioned facts and

circumstances the Applicant has no trust in the Goa
police and believes that Respondent no.2, because of
political interference and the mala fides of the state
government, is turning a blind eye to crucial pieces
of evidence. He therefore seeks intervention of this
Honble court under section 438 of the CRPC, against
any unreasonable deprivation of his liberty by the
Investigating authorities on the following grounds
amongst others.
GROUNDS
A. BECAUSE, as per Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma
vs Delhi Administration, ILR 1990 DELHI 203,
this Honble court has held :

. viewed from different angle, under Art.

226 of the Constitution the High Court has
been given still wider powers. Under Art.
226(2) it has been provided that the power
conferred by Clause (1) to issue directions,
orders or writs to any Government, authority or
person may also be exercised by any High
Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the
territories within which the cause of action,
wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such
power notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence of
such

persons

is

not

within

those

territoriesIn other words, the Applicant

is sought to be deprived of his personal liberty
and threatened to be arrested in Delhi within
the jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi and
through the police officers of Delhi to whom
the warrant has been endorsed, although the
offence is alleged to have been committed in
the State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, it cannot
be disputed that since there is a threat of
deprivation of liberty of the Applicant in the
State of Delhi in connection with an offence
alleged to have been committed in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, the cause of action in part
certainly arises in Delhi. Therefore, this Court
has Jurisdiction in the matter irrespective of

the scat of the Government or the High Court

within whose jurisdiction the offence is alleged
to have been committed. Therefore, in the light
of the discussion above, we have no doubt in
mind that since the Applicant has reason to
believe that he may be arrested on an
accusation of having committed a non-bailable
offence in Delhi, this Court has certainly the
jurisdiction

to

enlarge

the

Applicant

on

anticipatory bail under S. 438 of the Criminal

P.C.

as

well

as

under

Art.

226

of

the

Constitution.
B. BECAUSE, it is well established that as per the
cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, each
and every person accused of a crime is entitled to
a free and fair investigation and any interference
in the investigation would eventually deprive a
person of his right to a fair trial. The Honble
Supreme Court has laid down time and time again
that investigation into a criminal offence must be
free from obstructions or infirmities which may
legitimately lead to prejudice against the Accused.
The bias of the BJP against the Petitioner is a well
known fact and has earlier manifested itself in the
manner in which Tehelka was targeted, post its
expose on corrupt defence deals in 2001 and was
forced to shut down operations for over 3 years

while many of its employees were implicated in

false criminal cases as well.
C. BECAUSE the Law Commission of India, in its 41st
Report dated September 24, 1969 pointed out the
necessity of introducing a provision in the Code of
Criminal Procedure enabling the High Court and
the Court of Sessions to grant "anticipatory bail".
It observed in para 39.9 of its report (Volume I)
and the same is set out as under:
"The suggestion for directing the release of a
person on bail prior to his arrest (commonly
known

as

"anticipatory

bail")

was

carefully

considered by us. Though there is a conflict of

judicial opinion about the power of a court to
grant anticipatory bail, the majority view is that
there is no such power under the existing
provisions of the Code. The necessity for granting
anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes
influential persons try to implicate their rivals in
false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or
for other purposes by getting them detained in jail
for

some

days.

In

recent

times,

with

the

accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is

showing signs of steady increase. Apart from false
cases, where there are reasonable grounds for
holding that a person accused of an offence is not
likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty
while on bail, there seems no justification to

require him first to submit to custody, remain in

prison for some days and then apply for bail."
D. BECAUSE, the Statement of Objects and Reasons
for introducing section 438 in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, itself clarifies that Section 438
was introduced as the need was felt to evolve a
device by which an alleged accused is not
compelled to face ignominy and disgrace at the
instance of influential people who try to implicate
their rivals in false cases.
E. BECAUSE, the Applicant apprehends that the
instant investigation being carried out by the Goa
Police is patently tainted, unfair and is being used
as an opportunity to satisfy the long standing
grudge of the political executive against the works
and ideological stand of the present Applicant.
It is pertinent to note here that, the present FIR
pertains to a false and concocted version of an
encounter between two individuals which has
been spun out as an allegation of sexual assault
against the Applicant and it is clear that the same
are being propelled as part of some malafide
scheme. The examination of the CCTV footage of
Hotel Hyatt, Goa for the days of 7th and 8th of
November,

2013

will

not

only

unveil

the

concoction but will also establish the innocence of

the Applicant /Accused. The factum contained in
the aforementioned CCTV footage is well within

the

knowledge

of

the

present

Investigating

Agency; however, the Investigating Agency, in its

endeavor to please its political masters is turning
a blind eye to such footage in abrogation of its
primary duty, i.e. to conduct a fair investigation
and reveal the truth.
F. BECAUSE, the mandates contained in Article 21 of
the Constitution place the dignity of human life
and liberty on the highest pedestal and the
principle of an Accused being presumed innocent
till proven guilty forms the basis of Indian criminal
jurisprudence and therefore it is obligatory that
the

investigation

transparent

and

should
free

be

from

judicious,
incumbencies

fair,
or

interference.
G. That, apprehending arrest and the deprivation of
his

personal

liberty

in

connection

with

the

aforesaid FIR, the Applicant is constrained to

move the present Application under section 438 of
the

Code

of

Criminal

Procedure,

1973

to

safeguard his liberty in terms of the stipulations

contained therein.
17.

That, the Applicant is a person of well established

credentials and is a law-abiding citizen with immense
respect for the due process of law. The Applicant
undertakes to join the investigation as and when
required or called upon and shall extend his fullest

cooperation to the authorities in the conduct of their

ongoing investigation.
18.

That the Applicant is ready and willing to face the

investigation in order to prove his innocence and is
merely seeking a fair chance to defend himself
effectively.

19.

That, the Applicant has deep roots in society and

poses

no

flight

risk

and

there

can

be

no

apprehension of him absconding from justice or

tampering with evidence.
20.

That the Applicant is ready to comply with any

condition imposed by this Honble Court while
granting him anticipatory bail and shall further
comply with all the notices/ summons served on him
and undertakes to fully cooperate with the ongoing
investigation.

Under

no

circumstance

has

the

Applicant interfered with the investigation, nor will he

refrain at any point from providing any information/
documents as required by the investigating agencies.
21.

That, the present matter is not a case where

custodial interrogation is required, as nothing is
recovered from or at the instance of the Applicant.

22.

That no similar Application has been filed by the

Applicant before this or any other Court and the
same is bonafide and in the interest of justice.

23.

In view of the aforestated facts and circumstances,

the Applicant has grave apprehension of arrest and
hence is filing

the instant Application

for the

following reliefs as prayed for:

PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed
that this Honble Court may be pleased to:
a) Grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant in FIR No. 27/
2013 dated 22.11.2013, under Section 354 A, 376,
376 (2) (k) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered
at Dona Paula or in the alternative grant ad-interim
anticipatory bail (interim transit bail) to enable the
applicant to approach the Appropriate Court for
seeking reliefs in accordance with law.

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

fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and
good conscience.

APPLICANT
THROUGH COUNSEL

12TH

PLACE: NEW DELHI

[KARANJAWALA & CO.]

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

DATE: 25.11.2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI

OF 2013

BAIL APPLICATION NO.

IN THE MATTER OF:
TARUN TEJPAL

APPLICANT
VERSUS
STATE & ANR
..RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Shri Tarun Tejpal aged about 50 years S/O Inderjit Tejpal
R/O 12, Link Road, Jangpura Extension New Delhi at
presently New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and declare
on oath as under:
1.

That I am the Applicant in the present application

and competent to depose. I am well conversant with
the facts of the case.

2.

That

have

understood

the

contents

of

the

accompanying Application and I say that the facts

stated therein are true and correct to my knowledge.

3.

That I state that the contents contained in the

accompanying Application are true to my knowledge.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi this 24th day of November 2013 that the
contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material
has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, AT NEW DELHI

OF 2013

BAIL APPLICATION NO.

IN THE MATTER OF:
TARUN TEJPAL

APPLICANT
VERSUS

STATE & ANR

..RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C.

ON

BEHALF

OF

THE

APPLICANT

FOR

EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPY OF

ANNEXURES,

THE

TRUE

TYPED

COPY

OF

DIM/PROPER MARGIN/ UNDERLINE/SINGLE LINE

SPACING OF THE ANNEXURES.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1.

That the Applicant has preferred the accompanying

application, the contents whereof are not being
repeated herein for the sake of brevity and may be
read as part and parcel of the present application.

2.

That this Honble Court may kindly exempt the

applicant

from

filing

the

certified

copies

of

Annexures, true typed copy of dim/proper margin/

underline/single line spacing of the annexures.
3.

That the applicant undertakes to file the certified

copies of the documents as and made available to us
and also undertakes to file the fair typed of

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

this Honble Court.
4.

That the present application is filed bonafide and in

the interest of justice.
PRAYER

It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that in view

of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice, this Honble Court may be pleased to
exempt the applicant from the certified copies of the
documents and filing the true typed copy of dim/proper
margin/ underline/single line spacing of the annexures.

FILED BY

12TH

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: 25.11.2013

(KARANJAWALA & CO)

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