Vaibhav Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Vaibhav Sharma, S/o Sri Naresh Dutt Sharma, R/o H.No.1400, Trimurti Bhawan, Nandi Chowk, Indira Nagar-Ist, Meerut, District Meerut (U.P.). (cid:133)(cid:133).Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand .(cid:133)..Opposite Party. Arising out of Crime No. 2 of 2009, Under Sections: 376, 509, and 498-A I.P.C., one punishable under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and one punishable under Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000, P.S.: Sahaspur, District: Dehradun. Hon(cid:146)ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Nandan Arya, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, and Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant. Applicant-Vaibhav Sharma, who is in jail in connection with Crime No. 2 of 2009, relating to offences punishable under Sections 376, 509, and 498-A I.P.C., one punishable under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and one punishable under Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000, P.S. Sahaspur, District: Dehradun, has sought his release on bail. The applicant is husband of the complainant. From the First Information Report, it is also clear that the complainant was in love with the applicant and they got married to each other. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail. Let the applicant-Vaibhav Sharma be released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. Dt.24.04.2009 NS (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.