Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Harish Giri - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2554 of 2023
Decided On : 02-01-2024
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - The court analyzed the circumstances surrounding the bail application of Harish Giri, who was accused of serious offenses including abduction and extortion. The court highlighted the importance of the victim's actions and the context of the incident, noting that the victim did not raise an alarm or resist, which raised questions about the credibility of the prosecution's case. Ultimately, the court decided to grant bail, emphasizing that the determination was made at the bail stage and should not influence the trial's outcome.
Fact of the Case:
Harish Giri was in judicial custody for allegedly abducting a victim from a spa, demanding money, and attempting to establish physical relations. The victim reported the incident after identifying Giri from CCTV footage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim's behavior during the incident raised doubts about the prosecution's claims. The court noted that both the applicant and the victim were adults and questioned why the victim did not raise an alarm or resist.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the nature of the allegations and the circumstances of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the bail decision is made based on the facts presented at this stage, and any observations made should not affect the trial. The lack of immediate alarm raised by the victim and her subsequent actions were critical in assessing the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Result: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and providing two sureties.
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.
The court established that the circumstances surrounding the victim's actions and the credibility of the prosecution's case are significant factors in determining bail eligibility.
The court granted bail to the applicant under IPC Sections 376 and 506, emphasizing the need for conditions to protect the informant and ensure trial integrity.
The court established that the determination of bail should consider the context of the relationship and the actions of the victim, while ensuring that the decision does not prejudice the trial.
The court established that inconsistencies in a victim's testimony can significantly impact the decision to grant bail, especially in cases involving serious charges under the IPC and POCSO Act.
The court reinforced that allegations of sexual misconduct and coercion must be taken seriously, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and the need to protect the victim's dignity and safety.
The nature of the relationship between the accused and the victim can be a crucial factor in determining bail eligibility.
The seriousness of sexual offence charges and the victim's statement are crucial factors in determining bail applications.
The court emphasized that prior acquaintance and lack of evidence of coercion justified granting bail, highlighting the importance of assessing risks of influencing witnesses.
Various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witness....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
