1

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF VISHAKAGIRI

(CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION)

CRL.P. NO._____________2024

IN THE MATTER OF

MR. ANSH
SIDDHARAMA PURAM …PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1. STATE OF VISHAKAGIRI & ORS.

REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR …RESPONDENT

The address for service of all notices and process on the above named
respondent is that of his counsel.

The above named respondent most humbly submit this Criminal Writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Siddharama Puram.
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR.N CONTENT PG.NO

O
1. INDEX OF AUTHORTIES
 Statutes Referred
 Book Referred
 Website Referred
 List of Cases
 Other Authorities like Articles,
Reports etc
 List of Abbreviations

2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
3. STATEMENT OF FACTS
4. ISSUES RAISED
5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
6. ADVANCED ARGUMENTS
I. Whether the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 constitutionally valid

II. Whether the extension of police custody beyond 15

days is permissible in the present case?

III. Whether an FIR can be lawfully registered under

Sections 64, 69, 64(2)(m), 87, and 351 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in the instant case?

IV. Whether the FIR in the present case is liable to be

quashed?
V. Whether the accused in the present
case is entitled to be released on bail?
7. PRAYER

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

OPETITIONER
 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

OPETITIONER
 VS versus

4
FIR First Information
Report
AIR All India Reporter

SCC Supreme Court

Cases
& And

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

BNS Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita

BNSS Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita
Cr.PC Criminal Procedure
Code
IPC Indian Penal Code

Ld Learned

IO Investigating
Officer
PC Police Custody

Para Paragrapgh

IPC Indian Penal Code

JC Judicial Custody

I.e. That Is

Ors. Others
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
OPETITIONER
UP Uttar Pradesh
 5

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

OPETITIONER
 6

 CASES:
1. Namit Sharma v. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 745
2. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar AIR 1952 SC 75
3. Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014) 8 SCC 682
4. Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2014) 1 SCC 1
5. Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P.B. Vijayakumar (1995) 4 SCC
520
6. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
7. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
8. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
9. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1
10. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1
11. R.M.D.C. v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 628
12. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Laxmi Devi (2008) 4 SCC 720
13. Chaganti Satyanarayana and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh
(1986) 3 SCC 141
14. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602
15. State of Maharashtra v. Bharati Chandmal Varma (2002) 2 SCC 121
16. State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364
17. Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (1980) 2 SCC 559
18. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40
19. Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI (2007) 1 SCC 70
20. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7
SCC 439
21. Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI (1994) 5 SCC 410
22. Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453
23. Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010)
24. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2019 SC
4010
25. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3011
26. Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P.B. Vijayakumar 1995 AIR 1648
27. Shimbhu & Anr v. State of Haryana (2014) 13 SCC 318
28. Gaurav s/o Ravi Wankhede v. State of Maharashtra Criminal
Application [APL] NO.45 OF 2023
29. Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala (2014) 5 SCC 678
30. Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
OPETITIONER
 7

31. State of H.P. v. Prem Singh (2009) 1 SCC 420

32. Yedla Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 615
33. Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2019) 9
SCC 608
34. Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675
35. Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and others
(2019) AIR SC 327
36. State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426
37. Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC 259, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held:
38. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
39. State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540
40. Md. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar (2019) 6 SCC 107
41. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273
42. State of M.P. v. Madanlal (2015) 7 SCC 681
43. Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996) 1 SCC 490
44. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1
45. Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280
46. State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21
47. Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466
48. Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and Anr. (2012) 9
SCC 446
49. Ranjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 16 SCC 797
50. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528
51. Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 22
52. Sudha Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) SCC OnLine SC
1000
53. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40
54. Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508
55. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1
SCC 694
56. State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21
57. Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598
58. CBI v. Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187
59. Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 1
60. Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
OPETITIONER
 8

• BOOKS, STATUTES REFERRED:

1. The Constitution of in the India

2. The Code of Civil Procedure

3. Indian Penal Code

4. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

5. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita

6. Information Technology Act

• WEBSITES:

1. www.supremelaw.in

2. www.indiankanoon.com

3. www.lawyersclubindia.com

4. http://lawyerservices.com

5. www.maniputra.com

6. www.findlaw.com

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

OPETITIONER
 9

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the Petitioners have appeared before this

Hon’ble High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have

powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate
cases, any Government, within those territories’ directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other
purpose.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 1
0
STATEMENT OF FACTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 1
1

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

constitutionally valid

2. Whether the extension of police custody beyond 15 days is permissible

in the present case?
3. Whether an FIR can be lawfully registered under Sections 64, 69,
64(2)(m), 87, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in the
instant case?
4. Whether the FIR in the present case is liable to be quashed?
5. Whether the accused in the present case is entitled to be released on
bail?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 1
2

SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

constitutionally valid
2. Whether the extension of police custody beyond 15 days is
permissible in the present case?
3. Whether an FIR can be lawfully registered under Sections 64, 69,
64(2)(m), 87, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in the
instant case?
4. Whether the FIR in the present case is liable to be quashed?
5. Whether the accused in the present case is entitled to be released
on bail?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 11
3

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

constitutionally valid
2. Whether the extension of police custody beyond 15 days is
permissible in the present case?
3. Whether an FIR can be lawfully registered under Sections 64, 69,
64(2)(m), 87, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in the
instant case?
4. Whether the FIR in the present case is liable to be quashed?
5. Whether the accused in the present case is entitled to be released
on bail?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 21
4

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 21
5

PRAYER

Therefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and

authorities cited,
the Counsel on behalf of the Respondent humbly prays before this
Hon’ble Court that the Hon’ble Court be pleased and to adjudge
and declare that:

- The present review petition under PART-IV ORDER XLVII 1 of the

Supreme Court Rules, 2013, as well as mentioned in the Code of
Civil Procedure ORDER XLVII RULE 4(1) is not maintainable.

- The present review petition to be dismissed.

- The Hon’ble Court uphold its final judgment stating the

Brahmagiri Temple’s exclusionary custom is
unconstitutional.

- The Hon’ble Court grant the right to religion to every individual

including women, girls and transgender community, allowing
them to enter the temple.

The Court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which the
Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good
conscience.

All of which is respectfully affirmed and

submitted.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT