Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 5 (UTT)

Harish Giri v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-01-02

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Applicant Harish Giri is in judicial custody, in Case Crime No. 176 of 2022, under Section 170, 342, 354, 367, 384, 411, 505 IPC, Police Station Basant Vihar, District Dehradun He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, the applicant barged in to a spa, locked some employees, took the victim alongwith him, demanded money or asked her to establish physical relations with the applicant, to which the victim denied. The applicant took Rs.8,500/- from the victim. Next date, the victim revealed the incident to the owner of the spa. On the CCTV footage, the applicant could be identified. The FIR lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a false story. He would submit that outside the spa, there is a security guard, the victim did not raise any alarm. According to her, she simply followed the applicant, which is not reliable. Had the applicant taken the victim forcibly, the victim would not have joined him on a scooty, she would have raised the alarm, which she did not. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the victim has supported the prosecution case during trial. 6. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 7. Admittedly, both the applicant and the victim are major. The victim tells that all the persons in the spa had masked their faces, so was the applicant. It is the prosecution case that the applicant had earlier been a worker in the spa. Has not he been identified, the moment he entered into the spa? Why the victim followed the applicant without raising any alarm? Why did she board the scooty of the applicant? These and many more questions would find answers during trial. 8. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.