Rohit Rastogi vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 950 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Criminal Misc. Application No. 229 of 2022

Rohit Rastogi
                                                       ..... Petitioner
                               Vs.
State of Uttarakhand
                                                   .....Respondent



Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 2.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.


                         JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the

proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 4907 of 2021,

State of Uttarakhand Vs. Rohit Rastogi under Section

323, 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 pending in the court of Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital

("the case").

2. In the instant case, FIR has been lodged by

the respondent no. 2 (the informant). According to the

FIR, after marriage on the 5th October, 2020 with the

petitioner, the informant was harassed and tortured for

the demand of dowry. It is this FIR, in which, after

investigation charge sheet has been submitted. The

court took cognizance and proceedings of the case

initiated. It is impugned herein.

3. This matter was taken up on 10th February,

2022. On that day, it was argued that in fact, the

petitioner had already filed an application under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and there

are immense chances of amicable settlement between

the parties. On that day, the Court ordered to issue

notice to the informant, to the limited extent of

exploring the possibility of amicable settlement between

the parties. That is how the matter is listed today. The

petitioner and the informant both are present before

the Court.

4. The matter was taken up earlier in the

morning, when the parties took time for exploring the

possibility of settlement.

5. Now, the informant tells before the court that

there are no chances of amicable settlement.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the file.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

restrict his submission to the effect that directions may

be issued so that bail application that may be filed by

the petitioner may be considered in accordance with

the 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.

8. In the instant case, in fact, the FIR, prima-facie

discloses the commission of offences and after

investigation it has been found true. The court at this

stage may not enter into the deeper scrutiny of the

matter. Even otherwise no arguments have been

advanced on merits. Therefore, there is no reason to

make any interference on merits.

9. In the case of Satendra Kumar (supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for

considering the bail applications. For that purpose, the

offences have been divided in four categories.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 5

of the judgment observed that "the Trial Courts and

the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid

guidelines while considering the bail applications

for such matter." In order to enforce the directions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no further directions of

this court is required. This court has no doubt that the

court below shall follow the guidelines laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.

11. With the above observation, the petition

stands disposed of.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.03.2022

PN/-