PRATYUSH KUMAR
Rohit – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant challenging the correctness of bail rejection order dated 25.06.2016 passed by Sri D.K. Tiwari, Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Tract Court No.2, Bulandshahr in case crime no.564 of 2016 (State Vs. Rohit) under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, section 4 POCSO Act and section 3(2)5 of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989.
2. The memo of appeal has been presented in the office of the Court on 16.08.2017. The office of the Stamp Reporter has reported the filing of appeal beyond 357 days from its prescribed limitation. Along with the memo of appeal delay condonation application purported to be filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved, when it was inquired by the Court how the memo of appeal can be entertained after expiry of 180 days as per provisions contained in section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, newly inserted by Amending Act No.1 of 2016 which came into force with effect from 26.01.2016 vide S.O. 152(E) dated 18.01.2016. On this learned counsel for the appellant Sri Ajay Kumar, Advocate, has drawn attention of the Court to an order
A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak & Anr. 1984 (2) SCC 500
Harishanker Bagla vs. State of M.P. [AIR 1954 SC 465]
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others [(2004) 136 Taxman 360]
State of Gujrat Vs. Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh (2003) 8 SCC 50
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.