VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Delhi High Court 2017 › High Court of Delhi

Shubham Chawla v. State Delhi Administration

Court
High Court of Delhi
Decided
7 December 2017
Bench
Sangita Dhingra Sehgalauthor
Case no.
BAIL APPLN. 1549/2017

Judgment

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J DECEMBER 07 , 2017 gr//

Case details

Parties and counsel

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1549/2017 Order reserved on: 05th December, 2017 Order pronounced on: 7th December, 2017 SHUBHAM CHAWLA ….Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Suri, Mr. Rishabh Relan, Mr.Siddharth Kaushik, Advocates with parents of the petitioner. versus THE STATE …..Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State with SI Ashok, P.S- Amar Colony. Mr. Hardev Chadha, Advocate with complainant and her parents in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No. 264/2017, under Section 354/323/341/506/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC'), registered by P.S. Amar Colony, New-Delhi. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complaint was lodged by Ketika/complainant alleging that on 07.07.2017 at around 09.30 am, when she was leaving for her coaching centre in an auto rickshaw, the petitioner came near the auto rickshaw, stopped her vehicle, pulled her out and asked her to come along with him. On her refusal to do so, the petitioner threatened her and even snatched her phone. Thereby the complaint was lodged by the complainant under Section 354/323/341/506/427 of IPC. Hence, the present petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present FIR filed against the petitioner is false and fabricated; that the petitioner and the complainant were in relationship with each other since two and a half years, which was not accepted by her parents and therefore, implicated him in a false case; that the petitioner was acting under the influence of her parents and is in constant touch with the petitioner even after the lodging of the FIR; that no ingredients of Section 354 is fulfilled so as to implicate the petitioner under the said section; that no custodial interrogation is required. Hence, under the said circumstances, the present petition should be allowed. 4. Per contra, the learned APP for the State contends that benefit of anticipatory bail should not be accorded to the petitioner as the offence is of serious nature and stated that the petitioner has not even joined the investigation. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. After giving careful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, it is observed that as per FIR, the petitioner herein is charged for the offences under Section 354/323/341/506/427 of IPC. The complainant during lodging of her FIR has specifically stated that on 07.07.2017, the petitioner stopped her auto rickshaw and pulled her out of it. She further alleged that on her refusal to go along with her, he hit her and thereafter threatened her that he would kill her or kidnap her or get her attacked with acid. Further, while recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, she stated on similar lines by accusing him of severe offences and further stated that he threatened her that he would get her abducted if she refuses to stay with her and would also misuse her photographs. 7. Perusal of the record shows that he has been accused by the complainant of the offences under Section 354/323/341/506/427 of IPC. The contention of the counsel for the parties that no ingredients of Section 354 is fulfilled so as to implicate the petitioner under the said section is not accepted as per the allegations made by the complainant in her FIR as well as her subsequent statement made by her during recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Section 354 IPC, makes penal the assault or use of criminal force to a woman to outrage her modesty. The essential ingredients of offence under Section 354 IPC are: (a)That the assault must be on a woman (b)That the accused must have used criminal force on her (c)That the criminal force must have b

Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.