JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.38 of 2015, u/s 376, 511 I.P.C., Police Station-Sihani Gate, District-Ghaziabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 3. Perused the record. 4. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was not nominated in the F.I.R. and there is no proper identification parade organized in this case. Further submission is that as the applicant was earlier ousted from the service regarding which some agitation was initiated by the fellow comrades of the union and that had also indignated the office bearers of the hospital, eventually resulting into false implication of the applicant in the present case. Therefore, the applicant should be released on bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that this is a case in which one qualified lady doctor, who was employed in the hospital, was indecently assaulted upon by the accused-applicant and an audacious attempt to commit rape upon her was made. Further submission is that the applicant was a sweeper in the same hospital and the statement given by the victim doctor before the Magistrate u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. would indicate that while she was taking rest in the duty room, in the dead of the night the applicant sneaked into the room and gagged her. She resisted, protested and tried to save herself and wriggle out from the clutches of the applicant. In this process of struggling, the shirt of the accused-applicant got torn which was left out in the room itself. Thereafter, seeing his attempt having failed, the applicant fled away from there. Learned A.G.A. has brought the attention of the Court to the material collected by the Investigating Officer further in this regard which is to the effect that when the shirt of the applicant was shown to different members of staff, then Shri Vishnu Durai, who was the Manager of the canteen, told that he had seen the applicant wearing the same shirt in that night. There is also evidence, confirming the presence of the applicant at the place of occurrence, to the effect that when the applicant had run away from the place of occurrence he left the footprints on the floor and there was a trail of imparted footprints from Room No.605 up to the place of occurrence. It is relevant to mention that Room No.605 is the room in which the accused-applicant used to stay in the night. Thereafter when the accused-applicant was arrested the victim Dr. Juhi Chaouksy also had the occasion to see him and there was no mistake in identifying the accused-applicant by her. Submission is that as the victim had already seen the accused and identified him, the identification parade had lost its meaning as it remains useful and purposeful only when the identifying witness did not get any occasion to see the accused after the occurrence. Contention is that as the victim had already seen the accused-applicant then there was hardly any justification for the Investigating Officer to organize the identification parade. Further contention is that the lady doctors' work in the night hours is not only a professional service but they also perform an important social service by doing so and their safety and security is of prime importance. Such kind of audacious temerity displayed by the accused-applicant, who himself was an employee in the same hospital, is highly deplorable and cannot be either soft-pedalled or lightly viewed. 6. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. 7. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.