Navin Singh Bisht v. State of Uttaranchal
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arising out of Crime No. 01 of 2006 Under Section: Police Station: District: 304-B of I.P.C. and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act. Tallital Nainital Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Mr. J.S. Virk, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State. Application Navin Singh Bisht, who is in jail in connection with crime No. 01 of 2006, relating to offences punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and the offence punishable under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Tallital, District Nainital, has sought his release on bail. The First Information Report is delayed by ten days. There is not a single word about demand of dowry in the report. The father-in-law of the deceased informed the police about death of his daughter-in-law. Parents of the deceased were also informed in time. It appears that no one was at home when Smt. Deepa died in her matrimonial home. Cause of death, as mentioned in the postmortem examination report, is asphyxia due to hanging. Considering the above facts, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves bail. Let 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, Nainital. Dt. 21.09.2006 H.Negi (Prafulla, C. Pant, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
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.