Delhi High Court
Mohit vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 5 May, 2022
#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Order reserved on: 29.04.2022
Order delivered on: 05.05.2022
+ BAIL APPLN. 429/2022
MOHIT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the
State along with SI Anjali Rana
+ BAIL APPLN. 505/2022
AZAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Mr. Arunesh
Sharma, Mr. Akshay Saxena and Mr.
Jatin, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the
State along with SI Anjali Rana.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
ORDER
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:06.05.2022
18:06:17
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Sections 439 of Cr.PC
seeking regular bail in case FIR No.31/2020 under Sections 366A/370
(4)/372/376D/34/506/109 IPC and Sections 4/6/17 of POCSO Act registered
at Police Station Patparganj Industrial Area, East District, Delhi.
2. In brief, on 02.02.2020 prosecutrix 'H' along with her mother reported
about commission of rape with 'H'. In the MLC, prosecutrix named Harinder
and Mohit and some persons who had allegedly assaulted her and also
named Mannu to have facilitated sexual assaults. Initially, prosecutrix
refused for internal examination and UPT was found to be negative.
However, later on during the course of investigation, prosecutrix was found
positive for UPT and the fetus was sent to FSL for forensic examination.
3. Prosecutrix alleged that she is a student of 9th class and had met a girl
namely Mannu in Village Gazipur and they became friends. Prosecutrix
asked Mannu to arrange some job for her and on one day, Mannu along with
Harinder and Mohit took her to a hotel in Sahibabad. Harinder and Mohit
had booked two rooms. Mannu allegedly locked her in one room with
Harinder, while Mannu went to other room. Harinder raped her in the hotel
room and subsequently to that Mohit also came and raped her. Thereafter
they left her at Gazipur bus stop and prosecutrix was threatened not to
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:06.05.2022
18:06:17
disclose to anyone. Thereafter on 31.01.2020, Mannu again met her in
Gazipur and called one person namely Azad wherein she was raped by Azad.
4. On the aforesaid facts, the FIR was registered on 03.02.2020. During
investigation, CCTV footage of Welcome Residency was procured and sent
to FSL for examination. The accused were identified and arrested. The date
of birth of prosecutrix was established as 02.10.2005.
5. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the statements of
prosecutrix and alleged owner of Hotel have been recorded. It is vehemently
contended that as per FSL report, DNA profile generated from the blood
sample of Mohit, Azad and Harinder were found to be dis-similar with the
DNA profile generated from the product of conception of prosecutrix/victim
'H' and despite the aforesaid evidence on record, the assault is alleged to
have been committed by the accused and Azad. It is also contended that as
per the FSL report, the CCTV footage of 19.01.2020 could not be found in
the exhibits/DBR forwarded to FSL. It is submitted that during cross
examination, prosecutrix admitted that Investigating Officer had enquired
from her on 21.10.2020 as to with whom she had established physical
relations because of which she became pregnant and prosecutrix stated that
no other person had committed rape with her. As such it is urged by the
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:06.05.2022
18:06:17
counsel for petitioner that in the light of FSL report, the testimony of the
prosecutrix on the face does not appear to be reliable. Further contradictions
in the statement of the prosecutrix have been pointed out. Co-accused Mannu
is already stated to have been released on bail.
6. The application is opposed by the learned APP for the State and it is
submitted that the sexual assault by the accused has been supported by the
prosecutrix. The identity of the accused is further stated to be not in dispute
since prosecutrix allegedly remained with accused for a considerable period
during sexual assault. Accused Azad is also stated to be involved in another
FIR No. 240/2018 under Sections 323/341/506 IPC.
7. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised.
It cannot be ignored that prosecutrix alleged sexual assault only by Harinder,
Mohit and Azad though admittedly the DNA profile generated from the
blood sample of Harinder, Mohit and Azad were found to be dis-similar with
the fetus. This important fact cannot be ignored at this stage since the
consistent stand of prosecutrix is that she did not have sexual intercourse
with anyone else. Further CCTV footage of 19.01.2022, also could not be
found in the exhibits/DBR forwarded to FSL. The cross-examination of
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:06.05.2022
18:06:17
prosecutrix recorded before the learned Trial Court contains discrepancies as
to the date of incident. It is also pertinent to note that during cross-
examination, some calls have been admitted on behalf of prosecutrix to be
made by her mother, asking for certain amounts from mother of Harinder.
However, since the trial is still pending, it may not be appropriate to
elaborate and comment on the same at this stage in detail. It may be noticed
that prosecutrix again accompanied co-accused Mannu on 31.01.2020
despite the earlier alleged incident of sexual assault. The earlier incident was
not reported by her immediately, for the reasons best known.
Statement of prosecutrix has already been recorded and as such there does
not appear to be any possibility of influencing the witnesses in any manner at
this stage. The accused are in custody for about two years. Considering the
totality of facts and circumstances, the petitioners are admitted to bail on
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial court and subject to following conditions :
(i) The petitioners shall provide their mobile numbers to the
Investigating Officer (IO) concerned/SHO concerned at the time
of release, which shall be kept in working conditions at all
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:06.05.2022
18:06:17
times. The petitioners shall not switch-off, or change the same
without prior intimation to the IO concerned, during the period
of bail;
(ii) The petitioners shall not leave the NCT of Delhi without the
prior permission of the concerned trial court;
(iii) The petitioners shall not indulge in any criminal activity or any
illegal activities during the bail period;
(iv) The petitioners shall not communicate with, or come into
contact with the prosecution witnesses, or any member of the
victim's family, or tamper with the evidence of the case;
The bail applications are accordingly disposed of.
Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to expression of opinion
on merits of the case.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent and concerned
trial court for information and compliance.
(ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA)
JUDGE
May 05, 2022/A
Signature Not Verified
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:06.05.2022
18:06:17
