REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Shiv Shankar Tripathi Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. SANJAY GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUBIR SINGH SIMRANJIT SINGH MANN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
DOLAT RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE REP VS. ANIL SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
PRAHLAD SINGH BHATI VS. N C T DELHI [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOVIND UPADHYAY VS. SUDARSHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CHAMAN LAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DINESH M N VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
MANJIT PRAKASH VS. SHOBHA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
PRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR VS. ASHIS CHATTERJEE [REFERRED TO]
CBI HYDERABAD VS. SUBRAMANI GOPALAKRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY CHANDRA VS. CBI [REFERRED TO]
PADMAKAR TUKARAM BHAVNAGARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
POOJA BHATIA VS. VISHNU NARAIN SHIVPURI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PAPPU @ SURESH BUDHARMAL KALANI [REFERRED TO]
NEERU YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
VIRUPAKSHAPPA GOUDA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
DATARAM SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. [REFERRED TO]
SEEMA SINGH VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR [REFERRED TO]
X VS. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MAHIMANANDA MISHRA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Balram Mishra, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

(2.) Respondent-2 was issued notice and directed to be served through Chief Judicial Magistrate vide Court's order dated 02.01.2020. Chief Judicial Magistrate has submitted report vide letter dated 13.01.2020 stated that Respondent-2 has been served through his legal heirs. Neither, he himself has appeared nor represented through counsel. In the circumstances, I proceed to decide this application after hearing learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A.

(3.) It is contended that Respondent-2 is being tried under Sections 147 , 148 , 149 , 302 , 323 , 504 , 506 , 307 , 308 IPC, 131(2) of Public Representative Act and 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act in Case Crime No. 1716 of 2010 and was granted bail vide this Court's order dated 01.02.2011 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2864 of 2011. Respondent-2, who is enlarged on bail, misusing the situation and creating obstruction in trial by moving transfer applications repeatedly and in other manner is also threatening informant and witnesses. He has gone to the extent of threatening Trial Court by stating that Court may pass any order. In this regard observations made in the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. Second, Sant Kabir Nagar in Session Trial No. 101 of 2011 is reproduced as under: ....[VARNACULAR TEXRT OMITTED]....

Click here to view full judgment.

SHIV SHANKAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address