✦ Uttarakhand High Court

Darban Lal @ Fukya Lal v. State of Uttaranchal

CRL. BAIL APPLICATION No. 911 of 2006PRAFULLA C PANT

Case at a glance

Judgment

Arising out of Crime No.115 of 2006 Under Sections: 498-A and 304-B of IPC & Sec. ¾ of D.P. Act. Police Station: District: Gopeshwar Chamoli. _________________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State. Applicant Darban Lal @ Fukya Lal, who is in jail in connection with crime No. 115 of 2006, relating to offences punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. and that of one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S. Gopeshwar, District Chamoli, has sought his release on bail. Applicant is father-in-law of the deceased. It is argued that the applicant himself took the deceased to the hospital. It is also argued that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. It is further argued that the applicant is a senior citizen. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view, that the present applicant deserves bail. Let the applicant Darban Lal @ Fukya Lal 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, Chamoli. Dt. 30.10.2006 H.Negi (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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Uttarakhand High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CRL. BAIL APPLICATION No. 911 of 2006). ← Search more judgments