Partly allowed

Baljeet v. State NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC5 Mar 2018CRL.A./87/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court addressed multiple criminal appeals. It held that appeals related to deceased appellants (Baljeet, Bobal) must be treated as abated. Appeals involving acquitted accused were treated as dismissed. A stay was granted on certain pending appeals while specific respondents in other appeals were awaited notice.

What did the court decide?

Certain appeals treated as abated; others dismissed; some appeals stayed pending service of notice.

Baljeet Vs State NCT of Delhi — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~4 to 11

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+	CRL.A. 87	/2012
BALJEET		..... Appellant
	Through:	Ms. Pragya P. Singh, Advocate. Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Mr. Anupam, Mr.
		Sudarshan Rajan and Mr. Ajay
STATE NCT OF	versus DELHI	Verma, Advocates. ..... Respondent
	Through:	Mr. Amit Chaddha, APP for State.
+	CRL.A. 12	9/2012
KULWINDER		..... Appellant
	Through:	Ms. Pragya P. Singh, Advocate.
		Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Mr. Anupam, Mr.
		Sudarshan Rajan and Mr. Ajay
	versus	Verma, Advocates.
STATE ( NCT OF	DELHI )	..... Respondent
	Through:	Mr. Amit Chaddha, APP for State.
+	CRL.A. 12	99/2012
STATE NCT OF	DELHI & A	NR. ..... Appellants
	Through:	Mr. Amit Chaddha, APP for State.
	versus
KULWINDER &	ORS.	..... Respondents
	Through:	Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate.
		Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Mr. Anupam, Mr.
		Sudarshan Rajan and Mr. Ajay
		Verma, Advocates
		Ms. Pragya P. Singh, Advocate.

¶4

CRL.A. 139/2012

¶5

KAMALA & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Ms. Pragya P. Singh, Advocate. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Chaddha, APP for State. + CRL.A. 190/2012 KARAM PAL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Mr. Anupam, Mr. Sudarshan Rajan and Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocates versus STATE OF HARYANA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Chaddha, APP for State. + CRL.A. 210/2012 DHARAMBIR @ ILLA & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Mr. Anupam, Mr. Sudarshan Rajan and Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Chaddha, APP for State. + CRL.A. 226/2012 RAMPHAL & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Mr. Anupam, Mr. Sudarshan Rajan and Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocates versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Chaddha, APP for State.

¶6

CRL.A. 1472/2013 STATE & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Amit Chaddha, APP for State. versus JASBIR @ LILLU ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mukesh Kalia, Mr. Anupam, Mr. Sudarshan Rajan and Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocates

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

¶8

O R D E R % 05.03.2018

¶9

The status report filed today by the State reveals that four of the accused persons i.e. Baljeet S/o Inder (Accused No. 42: A-42), Bobal @Langra S/o Tek Chand (A-94), Rishi S/o Satbir (A-23) and Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Baru Ram (A-17) have expired.

¶10

In that view of the matter, Crl. A. 87/2012 filed by Baljeet S/o Inder is disposed of as having abated.

¶11

Likewise, in Crl. A. 210/2012, it is seen that Bobal @ Langra (A-94) is Appellant No.2. That appeal as far as he is concerned will be treated as having been abated. The said appeal will continue on behalf of Appellants 1 and 3 therein.

¶12

Rishi (A-23) and Jagdish @ Hathi (A-17) were acquitted by the trial Court and have been arrayed as Respondents 15 and 17 respectively in Crl. A. 159/2012 ( Kamala & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi ) and Respondents 14

¶13

and 16 respectively in Crl. A. 1299/2012 ( State v. Kulwinder & Ors. ). Baljeet (A-42) and Rishi (A-17) have been arrayed as Respondents 5 and 9 respectively in Crl. A . 159/2012 and Respondents 4 and 8 respectively in Crl. A. 1299/2012. Accordingly the said appeals as far as the said four accused (A-17, A-23, A-42 and A-94) are concerned, should be treated as having been dismissed.

¶14

Mr. Kalia, learned counsel, pointed out that in the State’s appeal Crl. A. 1299/2012, Balwan (R-31) S/o Jai Lal, Amit S/o Satyawan (R-59) and Rajbir@Nanha S/o Mai Chand (R-68) have not been served with notice. However, counsel for the State points out that the aforementioned three Respondents have been served through their close relatives. R-59 has been served through his father, Satyawan, R-62 (Balwan) through his brother (Dilbag) and R-68 (Rajbir) through his brother (Dharamvir).

¶15

List on 9^th April, 2018, the date already fixed.

¶16

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

¶17

I.S. MEHTA, J.

¶18

MARCH 05, 2018 nd

Baljeet v. State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljeet v. State NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chander Bhushan Vs State

Sandeep Tomar Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Keshav Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vikas Verma Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Anr.

Saroj Sharma Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Aslam Vs State N.C.T. of Delhi