Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Surendra @ Chhotu (Jail Appeal) vs State Of U.P. on 20 November, 2015

Surender Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 December, 2019

10. The appellants are seeking condonation of delay that their previous counsel misrepresented them that the appeal had been filed. In the present appeal, Sh. S.K.Jha Advocate is appearing for the appellants and perusal of the record shows that on 03.11.2017 when the convicts appeared before the Trial Court and stated that their appeal was pending in the Court of Sh. Pulatysaya Pramachala, Ld. ASJ for 10.11.2017, the same counsel Sh. S.K.Jha Advocate was present with the convicts on 03.11.2017 in the Trial Court. Despite knowing about the fact that NBWs have been against them, the convicts did not prefer any appeal against the judgment of Crl. Appeal No.198/19 Surender & Ors. Vs. State 7 of 9 conviction and order on sentence. Rather, they stopped coming to the Court and ultimately they were declared Proclaimed Offender. The accused persons did not appear in the Court for almost two years. As discussed above, their conduct is not desirable. There is no ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application filed by the appellants for condonation of delay is without any merit and the same is dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kale Pradhan @ Raj Kishor vs State Of U.P. on 19 January, 2021

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been contended that the applicant has not been named in the FIR and there is no recovery of any incriminating article from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing out. It has been pointed out that co-accused Manoj, Ramesh and Mahendra, who have been ascribed a similar role, have been enlarged on bail in Bail No. 9076 of 2019, Manoj @ Chhotu v. State of U.P., Bail No. 12323 of 2019, Ramesh @ Raju v. State of UP and Bail No. 9108 of 2019, Kishan @ Raju @ Kaliya v. State of UP. Lastly, it is contended that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 24.02.2019. The counsel contends that there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. The counsel assures the Court that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R Srivastava - Full Document

Juvenile X vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 December, 2022

This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 30.4.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act)/, Bulandshahar in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2022 (Narendra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P and another) as well as order dated 17.2.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board in Case Crime No. 476 of 2011 under sections 394, 411 IPC, Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandhshar, whereby both the Courts below have rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1