Dismissed¶20

Khalid Aziz v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2026CRRAD/2/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application — delay condonation — cause held bona fide and satisfactory, delay condoned — review dismissed where counsel pressed no issue, no fresh grounds raised, and no error apparent on face of record or valid new ground established — Khalid Aziz v. State of U.P. and Another, CRIMINAL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE (CRRAD) No. 2 of 2026, Allahabad High Court, Vinod Diwakar, J., decided April 20, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the review application condoned (delay condonation application allowed); the review petition itself dismissed with no substantive relief. ¶20

Khalid Aziz vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 2 of 2026

Khalid Aziz

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sanjiv Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Vipul Kumar Mishra

¶7

Court No. - 37

¶8

HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

¶9

Order on Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2026

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

¶11

The instant application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application.

¶12

The cause shown for the delay in filing the review application appears to be bona fide and satisfactory. It has been explained that the delay occurred due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the applicant.

¶13

In view of the above, the delay in filing the review application is hereby condoned. Accordingly, the delay condonation application stands allowed.

¶14

Order on Review Application

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed any issue in the review petition, nor has the petitioner raised any fresh grounds in support of the review application.

¶16

The only ground taken by the petitioner is that the legal and factual aspects of the petitioner's case were not properly considered at the time of final adjudication.

¶17

Upon perusal of the record, this averment is insufficient to entertain the review petition, as no error apparent on the face of the record or any valid new ground has been established by the petitioner.

¶18

CRRAD No. 2 of 2026

¶19

¶20