Delhi High Court
Mohit vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 June, 2020
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22nd June, 2020
+ BAIL APPLN. 1248/2020
MOHIT ..... Petitioner
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Puneet Garg, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. G.M. Farooqui, Addl. PP for the State
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICESANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks interim bail in FIR No. 113/2018 under Sections
363/342/376/34 IPC read with Sections 4/5 of POCSO Act, Police Station
K.M. Pur, for a period of three months for the treatment of his mother.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, the victim who is aged over 17
years went out of her house at about 9.00 p.m. on 09.04.2018 and went
missing. Complaint was lodged on 10.04.2018 at about 10.15 p.m.
4. As per the FIR, father of the victim stated that she left her house at
about 9.00 p.m. and despite searching for her they could not find her.
5. As per the statement of the victim recorded before the Trial Court,
she went to the market with her mother on 09.04.2018 and there she met the
petitioner, whom she knew for the last 2/3 months. Petitioner took her to a
house where he made forceful physical relation with her. Thereafter, she is
alleged to have escaped in the morning of 10.04.2018 and gone to the shop
of her brother's friend where she got to know that her parents were looking
for her so she left. She met another co-accused who took her to his house
and he also committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter he
dropped her at the corner of a street at 7.00 p.m. From there, she went to the
another co-accused at about 9.00 p.m., who is also alleged to have
committed sexual intercourse with her and in the evening on the following
day he is alleged to drop her off and from there she went to the house of her
friend and her friend's mother informed the parents of the victim who took
her to home.
6. Learned Addl. PP submits that the doctor whose medical certificate
has been filed and who examined the mother of the petitioner stated that
mother of the petitioner has been examined by him on 16.11.2019 and
advised some medication and as per him the problem was not serious.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the
petitioner had suffered a road traffic accident and had sustained severe
injuries on her head and there is no one in petitioner's family to take care of
her as his family comprises of his mother who had suffered the accident
and a 16 years old sister and besides them there is no other family member
to take care of his mother or even to take her to the doctor for examination.
He submits that because of the pandemic there are no funds in the house for
getting treatment for the petitioner's mother.
8. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no
material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence except the
statement of the victim which is also full of contradictions.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the MLC of the
victim does not support the case of the prosecution. He further submits that
as per her narration she should have returned home on 11.04.2018 whereas
in her testimony she says that she came home on 12.04.2018.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
clean antecedents and has a family to support and apart from the bare
allegations there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged
offence.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the medical report
also does not support the version of the victim that any forceful act was
done. He further submits that the testimony of the victim has already been
recorded before the trial court.
12. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view
the medical condition of the mother of the petitioner and the facts and
circumstances of the case, on petitioner furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
concerned Jail Superintendent petitioner, he shall be released on interim
bail for a period of four weeks from the date of his release.
13. Further, it is directed that during the period of his interim bail,
Petitioner shall not do anything which may prejudice the trial or the
prosecution witnesses. Petitioner shall not endeavour to contact the victim
or the family of the victim during this period. Petitioner shall not leave the
National Capital Territory of Delhi. Petitioner shall surrender his passport,
if any, to the Investigating Officer. Petitioner shall also furnish, to the
Investigating Officer, his as well his surety's mobile number which shall be
kept active during this period. Petitioner shall surrender to the concerned
Superintendent Jail on the expiry of the period of four weeks of his release.
14. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
15. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be
also forwarded to Learned counsels for the parties through email.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JUNE 22, 2020
'rs'
