In Subhash vs. Anjeev Kumar, the court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous application because the repeated calls resulted in no appearance by the petitioner, indicating lack of interest in representation.
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.
15.09.2026 Present:
Subhash vs. Anjeev Kumar
Cr.Revision No. 88 of 2024
None for the petitioner.
Cr.MP No. 3751 of 2026.
Case repeatedly called, but neither the petitioner nor any representation has been made on his behalf. Prima facie, it appears that the learned counsel is not interested to represent the petitioner; hence, the present application is dismissed.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 15.09.2026 (ravinder)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anjeev Kumar
Rakesh Kainthla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
