S K Jaiswal v. the State & Anr.
Case brief
What is this about?
This order finds five writ petitions infructuous as petitioners (except one) were granted parole by the competent authority and disposes of the matters accordingly.
What did the court decide?
Writ petitions 1240/2018, 1243/2018, 1245/2018, 1250/2018 and 1252/2018 disposed of as infructuous.
What the court decided
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA
versus
m
Respondents THE STATE & ANR. Represented by: Ms. Pumima Malik, Advocate for Mr. Avi Singh, Additional Standing Counsel for State with SI Sanjeev, PS Tilak Marg. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Spl. P.P. for CBI. W.P.(CRL) 1245/20181245/2018 Petitioner NEERAJ KUMAR Represented by: Mr. Khalil A. Ansari and Mr. Arif Shakeel, Advocates. versus
- W.P.(CRL) 1245/20181245/2018
Respondents THE STATE & ANR. Represented by: Ms. Pumima Malik, Advocate for Mr. Avi Singh, Additional Standing Counsel for State with SI Sanjeev, PS Tilak Marg. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Spl. P.P. for CBI. + W.P.(CRL) 1250/2018 Petitioner RAJESHBISHT Represented by: Mr. Khalil A. Ansari and Mr. Arif Shakeel, Advocates. versus
Respondents THE STATE & ANR. Represented by: Mr. Jamal Akhtar, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel for State with SI Sanjeev, PS Tilak Marg. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Spl. P.P. for CBI.
W.P.(CRL) 1239/2018,1240/2018,1243/2018,1245/2018,1250/2018 and 1252/2018 Page 2 of 3
.+
W.P.(CRL) 1252/2018
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Neeraj Kumar
- petitioner
Rajesh Bisht
- petitioner
Skjaiswal
- petitioner
Chander Mohan Singh
- respondent
The State
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court