IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Rohan Chaturvedi @ Rohan Chobey - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. No.3002 of 2021
Decided On : 08-04-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439, 164, 173(8), 161 and 41 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354C, 354D, 384, 509, 506 and 376 – Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67 - Grant Of Bail - Falsely Implicated - Obscene Messages - Applicant vide present application seeks grant of bail submitting to effect that he is incarcerated that he has been falsely implicated in instant case - Rani Garden, Geeta Colony who had alleged that she along with her friend went to Silver Key Executive Stay, where she met applicant who thereafter started blackmailing her that he had a CCTV footage of check-in and check-out of hotel and a video recording - Complainant alleged that applicant had sent her nude picture and obscene messages.
Finding of the Court: Undoubtedly, said maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’, relates to aspect of consideration of testimonies of witnesses during trial, spirit of its non-application in India and it being only a rule of caution as observed in verdicts of Hon’ble Supreme Court - It is apparent that said aspect would essentially have to be borne in mind even at stage of consideration of a bail application where contents of FIR and a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., 1973 of prosecturix are consistent in relation to all material particulars and also prima facie explain delay in lodging of same - Thus on a consideration of totality of circumstances of case put forth herein above there is no ground for grant of bail.
Result: Application declined.
JUDGMENT :
Anu Malhotra, J.
1. The applicant vide the present application seeks the grant of bail in terms of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, in relation to FIR No. 598/2020 Police Station Geeta Colony registered under Sections 354C/354D/384/509/506/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 67 of the IT Act submitting to the effect that he is incarcerated since 10.12.2020 and that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the relations, if any, between the applicant and the complainant were wholly consensual as is also brought forth through the photographs of the applicant and the complainant that have been placed on record.
2. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that he was arrested on his wedding day and remanded to police custody on 10.12.2020 and subsequently placed in judicial custody on 12.12.2020; that an application had been filed by the applicant bearing Bail Appln. No. 4245/2020 seeking grant of bail which was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.1.2021 and that thereafter a supplementary charge sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer dated 7.7.2021.
3. It is further submitted that the allegations of the complainant are totally false and vague and not corroborated by the investigation conducted. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that even as per the report received from the Cyber Cell revealed that an ID Nalayak_111 had been created from the mobile No. 9899013048 owned and registered in the name of the complainant. The applicant has further submitted that the complainant has created fake IDs with a purpose to create false evidence against the petitioner.
4. The status report submitted by the State for the date 10.9.2021stated to the effect that the FIR was registered on the statement of the victim 'D' d/o 'PB' resident of 105, Rani Garden, Geeta Colony who had alleged that in 2019 she along with her friend Kapil went to the Silver Key Executive Stay, 29520 hotel in Noida, UP, where she met the applicant who thereafter started blackmailing her that he had a CCTV footage of the check-in and check-out of the hotel and a video recording. The complainant alleged that the applicant had sent her nude picture and obscene messages through whatsapp, instagram, facebook messenger and text messages and also extorted a huge amount from her and also threatened her.
5. It was stated further through the status report that in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, recorded on 7.12.2020, the complainant had alleged that one day, she had gone to the applicant's hotel Collection 'OYO' where the applicant took her into a room on the terrace and locked her, dragged her neck and banged her head at the wall and put his hands/fist into her private part and on the basis of her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was also added and the medical examination of the complainant was also conducted on 8.12.2020 at the SDN Hospital and her counselling was also done wherein she corroborated the allegations made against the petitioner/applicant.
6. The applicant is stated to have also been detained on 10.12.2020 from the Ramada Hotel, Mussorie, and brought to the Police Station Geeta Colony and after a detailed interrogation he was arrested at 16:50 hours on 10.12.2020 by following all guidelines as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K.Basu V. State of Bengal, AIR (1997) SC 610, and thereafter two days' custody remand of the applicant had been granted to recover his mobile phone and the laptop with which the applicant used to send messages for blackmailing the complainant and to recover the extorted amount but the applicant did not co-operate in the investigation.
7. As per the status report a notice was served to the Manager of the Silver Key Executive Hotel, Noida to provide the CCTV f
Point of Law : Petitioner allegedly transmitted the obscene photographs of the prosecutrix to the prosecutrix’s brother bringing him prima facie withing the domain of Section 67 of the IT Act, 2020, ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to grant anticipatory bail was influenced by the evidence presented, lack of requirement for further custodial interrogation, and....
The court determined that continued consensual relations between parties undermined allegations of coercion, allowing bail based on absence of credible evidence of force.
Inducement to have a physical relationship by promising marriage must have a clear nexus with moment promise of marriage cannot be held out as an inducement for engaging in sex over a protracted and ....
(1) Expression “life” in Article 21 does not connote merely physical or animal existence – Right to life includes right to live with human dignity.(2) Capturing images and videos with consent of woma....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.