SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Del) 307

SAT PAL
SUNIL SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.K.SARIN, SHAMBHU NATH JHA

( 1 ) THIS is a petition for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 2 ) IN this case at the instance of the wife Smt. Sunita Sharma, a case was registered under Sections 406/498a, I. P. C. at P. S. Anand Parvat against the petitioners. The petitioners approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail and a learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 20/03/1993 directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 10,000/- each in a nationalised bank in the name of the trial Court within one week and directed that on such deposit, in the event of arrest, petitioners will be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/sho.

( 3 ) MR. Shambhu Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the condition for deposit of Rs. 10,000/- each in the shape of FDR imposed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was contrary to law. He submitted that the proceedings under Section 406/498a, IPC are not meant for the recovery of the jewellery or other articles of dowry. In support of his




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top