Delhi High Court
Mohit Chawla vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 5 April, 2018
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 05.04.2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 675/2018
MOHIT CHAWLA ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Jawahar Chawla
For the Respondent : Mr Akshai Malik, Addl. PP for the State
SI Neetu.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
05.04.2018
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Nominal Roll of the Petitioner has been received. The same is
taken on record.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.453/2017 under
Sections 376-D/365 IPC, Police Station K.N.Katju Marg.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the subject case.
4. The allegations in the FIR are that the victim, who had come to
Delhi from Calcutta, was abducted by about four individuals at 10:30
pm when she had stepped out of her sister's house to go to the market.
The accused are alleged to have taken her in a vehicle to a house and
thereafter five accused are stated to have raped her repeatedly.
5. As per the prosecution, the victim could manage to escape at
about 3:30 in the morning and contact her sister through the phone that
she was carrying. Her sister asked her to come near a temple which
was familiar to her being an outsider. While she was on her way to the
temple she met her sister and brother-in-law and two of the accused
were, at that point of time, chasing her. The sister is alleged to have
called the Police Control Room and the two accused were
apprehended from the spot.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are
several discrepancies in the version of the prosecutrix and further
contends that the call detail records of the sister, as obtained by the
Investigating Officer, shows that there were to and fro calls between
the victim and her sister commencing from 1:31 am upto 2:51 am. It
is contended that as many as six calls are alleged to have been made
lasting into several minutes each. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that apart from other discrepancies, this discrepancy alone
completely falsifies the story of the prosecution.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is a
CCTV footage which establishes that the petitioner was not available
at the alleged scene of offence and was present in his own house.
8. Further, counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix
has even filed an affidavit before the Trial Court retracting from the
version recorded in the FIR.
9. Without commenting on the merits of the case, perusal of the
record shows that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of
regular bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted bail, subject to
petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with
one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
10. Further, it is directed that the petitioner shall not do anything,
which shall either prejudice the investigation or the prosecution
witnesses. The petitioner shall not leave the country without
permission of the Trial Court. The petitioner shall not contact the
prosecutrix or her family members.
11. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
12. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 05, 2018/'Sn'
