Kuvar Pal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 822 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

      Criminal Misc. Application No. 290 of 2022

Kuvar Pal Singh                                     ........... Applicant

                                       Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another                       ........ Respondents


Present : Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.




                                 JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Challenge in this petition is made to the

charge-sheet no. 78 of 2019, cognizance/summoning

order dated 04.08.2021 and entire proceedings of Special

S.T No. 888 of 2021 under Section 135 of the Electricity

Act, 2003, pending in the court of District and Sessions

Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar ( for short "the case").

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The case is based on an FIR lodged by

respondent no.2, the informant. According to the FIR,

when Power Corporation officials were on regular

patrolling on 15.02.2019 at around 1:15 PM, they found

that the applicant has made a cut in electricity cable prior

to the meter. Thereafter, the aforesaid FIR was lodged

against the applicant under Section 135 of Electricity Act

as FIR No. 41 of 2019 at Police Station Ranipur District

Haridwar.

4. It is this matter, in which, after investigation,

charge sheet was submitted. Cognizance has been taken.

The applicant was summoned under Section 135 of

Electricity Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very

outset submits that directions may be given to the court

below to consider the bail application of the petitioner, in

view of the judgment in the case Satendra Kumar Antil vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC

Online SC 922.

6. This is a petition under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. The scope is much wide, but

also guided by the principles as laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court.

7. In the instant case, FIR discloses commission

of cognizable offences. After investigation, the allegations

have been found to be true. There appears to be no

reason to make any interference in the proceedings. Even,

as stated, on behalf of the petitioner no arguments have

been made, on merits.

8. In the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra),

the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for

deciding of the bail application. For that purpose, the

cases have been divided under four categories. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the trial courts

and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid

guidelines, while considering the bail application. This

Court has no doubt, that as and when, the petitioner

approaches the trial court for bail, the trial court shall

definitely follow the directions given in the case of

Satendra Kumar Antil (supra). No separate directions of

this Court are required for that purpose.

9. With the above observations, the petition

stands disposed of.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 22.03.2022 Nahid