Mohit Giri @ Mohit Goswami vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Date of Decision: 03 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010711092025
+ BAIL APPLN. 3637/2025
MOHIT GIRI @ MOHIT GOSWAMI …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deep Kumar, Advocate (through
VC)
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI …..Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the
State
Mob: 9871349009
SI Anju, PS NIA
Ms. Astha, DHCLSC along with Ms.
Megha Singh, Advocate for Victim
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):


1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 read with Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking
regular bail to the petitioner, i.e., Mohit Giri @ Mohit Goswami, S/o S.
Vishamvar Giri, in connection with the First Information Report (“FIR”),
th
being FIR No. 314/2024 , dated 27 March, 2024, under Sections
376D/506/342/363/109/313/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and
Sections 4/6/21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(“POCSO Act”), registered at Police Station (“PS”) Narela Industrial Area,
Outer North, Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:39:16

2. The facts of the present case, as culled out from documents on record,
filed on behalf of the State, are as follows:
2.1. The present FIR came to be registered pursuant to a statement of M,
th
who stated that on 26 March, 2024, at around 08:30 PM, her sister, i.e., P,
went somewhere, without any information or intimation. Despite efforts to
search for her, she was nowhere to be found. She suspected that her sister had
been lured and taken away.
th
2.2. On 10 January, 2025, the complainant came to the PS with P, the
missing girl, pursuant to which, her medical examination was conducted at
Satyawadi Raja Harish Chandra Hospital, Delhi (“SRHC Hospital”) vide
Medico Legal Case (“MLC”) bearing no. 3724/2025, wherein, it was opined
that she was sexually assaulted by Vicky. Thereafter, Vicky sold P to one
Kavita, who further sold her to a person and was taken to Lal Flats. P was
sexually assaulted multiple times by Vicky, and his friends Deepak and
Mohit. P was sent to the Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital (“BSA”)
Hospital, Delhi, for ultrasound, which was conducted vide MLC 772/2025 ,
wherein, she was found not pregnant.

2.3. P in her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, recorded before the
th
Magistrate, corroborated that on 26 March, 2024, pursuant to a fight with
her sister and fearing beating, she hid herself in the nearby building.
Subsequently, Vicky and his friends kidnapped her and committed sexual acts
upon her. She further stated that she went from one place to another and has
been sexually assaulted several times.
2.4. She also stated that the petitioner was also present once when Vicky
had sexually assaulted her. Moreover, the petitioner along with Deepak and
Prem Narayan, has sexually assaulted her.
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:39:16

3. The Sessions Case, being SC 187/2025 , is pending adjudication before
the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (“ASJ”) – 05, North, Rohini Courts,
Delhi, and is presently at the stage of prosecution evidence.
th
4. The latest Nominal Roll dated 24 October, 2025, furnished by the Jail
th
Authorities, shows that the petitioner has been in custody since 06 March,
rd
2025, i.e., a period of 07 (seven) months and 18 (eighteen) days, as on 23
October, 2025, and is still in Judicial Custody (“JC”).
5. On behalf of the petitioner, following submissions have been made:
5.1. The complaint lodged by the prosecutrix is self-defeating and
contradictory while it also suffers from material flaws and illegalities on the
face of it.
5.2. The documents relied upon by the prosecution for the age verification
of the prosecutrix are forged and manipulated.
5.3. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as there
is nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever coerced or enticed the
prosecutrix, moreover, the presence of the prosecutrix in his house was natural
as the prosecutrix joined the same as a maid to look after the petitioner’s
pregnant sister.
5.4. Perusal of the Chargesheet reveals no date, time or year as regards the
incidents of sexual assault. Furthermore, even when the prosecutrix had the
opportunity to approach her own relatives, she did not.
5.5. The co-accused, i.e., Prem Narayan was granted bail vide order dated
th
05 May, 2025, by the Trial Court. All accused persons, excluding Vicky,
have been enlarged on bail by the Trial Court.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the State submits
that there are 12 accused in the present matter and the case is at the stage of
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:39:16

examination of prosecutrix.
7. The State, opposing the present application, has put on record a Status
th
Report dated 13 January, 2026, whereby, it has been stated that the petitioner
is previously involved in FIR 316/2019 , registered at PS Begampur, Rohini,
Delhi, and FIR 559/2020, registered at PS Hari Nagar, West, Delhi, under
Sections 33/58 of the Excise Act.
8. Learned counsel for the victim also vehemently opposes the present
application and submits that there are serious allegations against the
petitioner.
9. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court
notes that the present case involves allegations of gangrape and trafficking,
wherein, the prosecutrix was not only sexually assaulted multiple times by
many people including the petitioner herein, but was also sold.
10. In this regard, this Court refers to the observations made by the
th
Supreme Court in the order dated 27 November, 2024, titled as X Versus
State of Rajasthan and Another. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 , wherein, it
was stated that ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc.,
once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses,
the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining
the bail application of the accused. The relevant excerpts of the said order are
as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity,
etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts
examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the
High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application
of the accused .
Signature Not Verified
Page 4 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:39:16

15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i)
either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before
the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial
court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral
evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some
discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing
the credibility of the victim.
16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct
practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial
commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion
which may either result in the conviction of the accused or
acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises
its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the
accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it
will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to
appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event
if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the
part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his
release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a
speedy trial has been infringed.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. Further, in its decision in the case of State of Karnataka Versus Sri
Darshan and Others, (2026) 8 SCC 223 , the Supreme Court laid down the
following considerations that are relevant when exercising discretion to grant
or deny bail:
“xxx xxx xxx
29.2. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Prahlad
Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 674] , this Court laid down guiding principles:
“(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not
only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the
punishment, if the accusation entails conviction and the nature
of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being
tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for
Signature Not Verified
Page 5 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:39:16

the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter
of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the
court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and
it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be
considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there
being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the
normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of
bail.”
xxx xxx xxx
35.1. It is well settled that the mere filing of a charge-sheet does
not confer an indefeasible right to bail. Likewise, the mere
prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the
gravity of the offence, the incriminating material gathered
during investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with
witnesses.
35.2. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005) 2 SCC 42 : 2005 SCC
(Cri) 489] , this Court categorically held that: (SCC p. 48, para
8)
“8. … the High Court could not have allowed the bail application
on the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial without
taking into consideration the allegation made by the prosecution
in regard to the existence of prima facie case, gravity of offence,
and the allegation of tampering with the witness by threat and
inducement when on bail. … non-consideration of the same and
grant of bail solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated
the order…”
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. This court also takes note that the examination of the prosecutrix is still
going on.
13. Accordingly, in view of the conspectus of the present matter, no case is
Signature Not Verified
Page 6 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:39:16

made out for grant of bail.
14. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026
ak
Signature Not Verified
Page 7 of 7

Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
14:39:16