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

1991 Supreme(All) 675

B.P.SINGH
BRIJESHWAR DAYAL VERMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 S.438

B. P. SINGH, J.

( 1 ) AN application for bail (Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 4771 of 1990) was moved on behalf of Kaya Prakash, who is being prosecuted for committing the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B, IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P. S. Murad Nagar, district Ghaziabad.

( 2 ) THE allegation in the affidavit of Pramod Kumar, which was filed along with the bail application, was that Anand Prakash was married to Smt. Santosh about 8 years back. The bail application was allowed on 25-4-1990.

( 3 ) NOW Brijeshwar Dayal Varma, the first informant of the case, has applied for cancellation of the bail. The notice of this application for cancellation of bail was served upon the accused and he has filed a counter-affidavit in reply to the application for cancellation of bail.

( 4 ) THE main ground of the applicant Brijeshwar Dayal Varma is that there was a mis-statement of fact in the affidavit of Pramod Kumar regarding the time as to when the marriage of the deceased had taken place with Anand Prakash. Pramod Kumar had alleged in the affidavit that the said marriage took place about 8 years back while the fact was that the said marriage between Smt. Santosh and Anand Prak





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