(1) Vikram Singh v. State of Uttaranchal
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Vikram Singh son of Sri Rajendra Singh, resident of village Peika, P.S. Joshi Math, District Chamoli and (12) Balwant Singh son of late Chandra Singh, resident of village Peika, P.S. Joshi Math, District Chamoli. Versus ………………Applicant(s) State of Uttaranchal. ……….Opposite Party _________________________________________________________________________ Arising out of - Case Crime no.9 of 2002-03 Under section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, Forest Range Circle Nanda Devi Rastrya Park, Joshimath, District Chamoli _________________________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Irshad Hussain, J. By the Court Heard learned counsel for the applicants-accused and the learned A.G.A. According to the version of the complaint, these applicants-accused have not killed the wild animal. Considering this, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Let the applicant (1) Vikram Singh son of Sri Rajendra Singh, resident of village Peika, P.S. Joshi Math, District Chamoli and (12) Balwant Singh son of late Chandra Singh, resident of village :Peika, P.S. Joshi Math, District Chamoli be released on bail in case crime no.9 of 2002-03, under section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, Forest Range Circle Nanda Devi Rastrya Park, Joshimath, District Chamoli on their each filing a personal bond and adequate sureties each to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Chamoli.
24.03.2003./B. (Irshad Hussain, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 — s. 51.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 24 Mar 2003. The bench was IRSHAD HUSSAIN.
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.