Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ramsharan Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 29 October, 2020
Bench: N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant, Aniruddha Bose
SLP(Crl.)No.4929/20 etc. 1
ITEM NO.19 Court 2 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4929/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-06-2020
in CRLMN No.13033/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna)
RAMSHARAN YADAV Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.103917/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.103918/2020-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. and IA No.103919/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No.4961/2020 (II-A)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.104511/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.104512/2020-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. and IA No.104513/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT)
Date : 29-10-2020 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aditya Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Sameer Kumar, AOR
Mr. Shah Rukh Ahmad, Adv.
Ms. Niharika Singh Rathore, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP(Crl.)No.4929/2020
The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.
The application for exemption from filing affidavit is allowed.
Signature Not VerifiedHaving heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2020.10.29 15:32:23 IST Reason: carefully perusing the material placed on record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
………..2/-
SLP(Crl.)No.4929/20 etc. 2The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
SLP(Crl.)No.4961/2020The Court is convened through Video Conferencing. The application for exemption from filing affidavit is allowed.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perusing the material placed on record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RAJ RANI NEGI) DEPUTY REGISTRAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR