Writ petition seeking directions to conclude criminal trial expeditiously was dismissed. The Court held that since most witnesses were examined and the Trial Court had already fixed consecutive dates, no extraordinary jurisdictional direction was required.
Writ petition dismissed; no direction issued to Trial Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~59
SIDHARTH JAITLY ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.K.Sethi and Ms.Dolly Sharma, Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Rahul Mehra, St.Counsel for the State.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R
% 09.02.2016
Crl.M.A. No.2340/2016
W.P.(CRL) 420/2016
this petition, copy of the proceedings dated 24.11.2015 before learned Trial Court has also been annexed which reveals that the next dates of hearing fixed in the matter are 17.02.2016 and 18.02.2016 for remaining PE.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
FEBRUARY 09, 2016 ‘st’
W.P.(CRL) 420/2016
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court needs to issue directions under Article 226 to conclude the trial expeditiously given the substantial progress made.
Whether the learned Trial Court's steps to fix consecutive dates for remaining prosecution evidence suffice to avoid Supreme Court intervention.
7 provisions across 3 enactments
Sidharth Jaitly
State
Pratibha Rani
S.K.Sethi
Dolly Sharma
Mr. Rahul Mehra
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Pratibha Rani and S.K.Sethi and Dolly Sharma and Mr. Rahul Mehra
Parties & counsel
