Advocates:
['SANDEEP TANDON', '', 'TAJASWINA SAGAR', 'G A']

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No. 135 of 2022

Kirtiram Singh Rawat

…........ Petitioner

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another

…..... Respondents

Present : Mr. Sandeep Tandon and Ms. Tajaswina Sagar, Advocates for the

petitioner.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Lata Negi, Brief Holder for the

State/respondent no.1.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Challenge in this petition is made to the

summoning and cognizance order dated 08.04.2021,

passed in Criminal Case No. 2790 of 2021, State vs.

Kirtiram Singh Rawat, under Sections 420, 506 IPC, by

the court of 5th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Dehradun (for short, “the case”) as well as the entire

proceedings of the case.

2.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that petitioner restricts his

prayer that directions be issued to the court below that as

and when the petitioner appears and applies for bail, his

bail application may be considered in view of the

2

directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given in the case

of

Satendra

Kumar

Antil

vs.

Central

Bureau

of

Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922. In

the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines for

considering the bail applications and categorized the

cases under different categories.

3.

This Court has no doubt that as and when the

petitioner appears and applies for bail, the court

concerned shall take into consideration the guidelines

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Satendra Kumar Antil (supra). For that purpose, no

separate directions are required by this Court.

4.

With the above observations, the petition

stands disposed of.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

23.02.2022

Sanjay