Raunak Malhotra vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

The applicant-Raunak Malhotra is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.231 of 2017, registered at Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

According to the First Information Report dated 05.05.2017, the informant was going to his house on his scooter on 04.05.2017. A Swift car came from behind with a high speed and blowing hooter. The informant lost his balance. He chased the car. He went near the car and found that one old couple was sitting in the car. The driver of the car was not present. After sometime the driver, the co-accused Rishab Jain, came there and pushed him. The informant went from the spot. Thereafter, when the informant was talking to one Ashok Thakur, the co-accused Rishabh Jain came there and pushed the informant. The informant fell down and to save his life, he went inside a bakery shop. The co-accused Rishabh Jain, the applicant Raunak Malhotra and two others chased the informant inside the shop. The co-accused Rishabh Jain inflicted sauce bottle on the head of the informant. The present applicant and other co-accused beat the informant. They threatened to kill him. The informant was taken to the hospital. The CCTV footage of the bakery shop was shown to the informant by his elder brother.

Heard Mr. Vaibhav Krishan Pandit, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for respondent.

Mr. Vaibhav Krishan Pandit, Advocate, submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. According to the medical examination report, the injury was not grievous in nature. There was no CCTV as alleged by the informant. The informant was discharged from the hospital on the same day. The co-accused Rishabh Jain, has already been granted regular bail by this Court in the First Bail Application No.2642 of 2019. Applicant is not a previous convict. He is in custody since 05.03.2025.

Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate, appearing for the State has opposed the bail application orally.

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the investigation is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.

The Bail Application is allowed.

Let the applicant- Raunak Malhotra be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.