Virendra Kumar @ Binder v. State of Uttaranchal
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
Arising out of Crime No. 64 of 2006 Under Sections: Police Station: District: 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. & ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act Pathri Haridwar. ______________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State. Applicant Virendera Kumar @ Binder, who is in jail in connection with crime No. 64 of 2006, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C and offence punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. It is argued that the allegations of demand of dowry are general in nature and no specific allegation has been made as against the applicant that he made a demand of dowry. The First Information Report is a delayed one. It is also contended that the applicant is illiterate and person of labour class and had no means to maintain a motorcycle, regarding which it is alleged that a motorcycle was demanded in the dowry. Without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, considering all facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. Dated 19.09.2006 HN (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — ss. 3, 4.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 19 Sep 2006. The bench was PRAFULLA C PANT.
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.