ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
Shiv Sahni – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.
On account of common legal jugglery involved in these appeals the same is being disposed of by a common order.
2. Either on account of non-sensitisation of the learned lower court with regard to mandate of section 389(3) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 or feeling completely detached with the stage after recording conviction allowing casual way of treatment which became night mare for the appellate court to deal with the matter in terms of Chapter XII Rule-8 of the Patna High Court Rules whenever appeal comes for admission and appellant is found availing provisional bail. The trial court are passing post conviction orders in casual manner failing to identify (a) In what manner order of provisional bail should be passed (b) should be for specified period sufficient for convict to file an appeal. In likewise manner, the office also happens to be careless while checking the memo of appeal in identifying the mistakes having on that very score at the end of trial court so that, within the stipulated period which happens to be sixty days in terms of Article 115
Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat
Chandra Shekhar Bharti v. State of Bihar
K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka
Kanaka Rekha Naik v. Manoj Kumar Pradhan
Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P.
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy
State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.