Application for leave to appeal against a 2013 acquittal; the court granted leave, admitted the main appeal, and listed it per roster, clarifying that its pendency shall be inconsequential for the respondent.
Leave to appeal granted and main appeal admitted for hearing in ordinary queue.
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.
201 CRM-A-881-MA-2013
MAHENDER PAL SHARMA V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR
Present:Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate and Mr. Anshul Ahnihotri & Anuj Y. Attri, Advocater for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ashish Bishnoi, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Jitender Kaushik, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the present application for leave to appeal against acquittal was filed in the year 2013 and they have a very good case on merit.
On the contrary, counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the judgment of acquittal is well reasoned and leave to appeal should not be granted. He further submits that in case, this Court grants leave to appeal and admits the main appeal, its turn will not come for hearing for decades, as such pendency of the appeal may be treated in-consequential for the respondent. He further submits that respondent no.2 be not directed to furnish personal bond for his attendance and he undertakes to comply with all the directions of this Court.
Leave to appeal is granted.
Main appeal
Admit.
List on its own turn as per queue following the roster of NIA.
It is clarified that pendency of this appeal shall be in-consequential for
any purpose whatsoever.
( ANOOP CHITKARA ) JUDGE
August 21, 2024 AK
ASHWANI KUMAR 2024.08.23 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an acquittal judgment.
Mahender Pal Sharma
State of Haryana
Respondent No. 2
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
