1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction Dated: Nainital: the 26th day of July, 2011 First Bail Application No. 563 of 2011 Criminal Side Pankaj S/o Brijpal R/o Kewalpuri Muzaffarnagar P.S.Civil Lines Muzaffarnagar District Muzaffarnagar U.P. …….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…..Opposite Party Arising out of Case Crime No. 66 of 2011 Under Sections: 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C, and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Police Station: Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee District: Hardwar Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, present for the applicant. Mr. S.S.Adhikari,A.G.A., present for the State. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, present for the complainant. 2 Heard. Applicant– Pankaj, who is in jail in connection with Case Crime No. 66 of 2011, relating to offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C, and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, police station Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Hardwar, has sought his release on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant to pressurize him, in the divorce petition filed by him. On the other hand on behalf of the complainant, and the State, it is argued that there is specific act of cruelty mentioned in the First Information Report. Applicant is in jail for last more than one month. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, and learned counsel for the State, and learned counsel for the complainant without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail. The Bail Application is allowed. Let the applicant-Pankaj be released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of the 3 like amount, to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.26.07.2011 Nahid