BHUPINDER SINGH MEHRA Alias JHOTA Alias HARDEEP vs STATE — 7/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 448. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED on 17th March 2026.
T.P. Crl - Transfer Application(CRL)
CNR: DLNT010014162026
e-Filing Number
03-02-2026
Filing Number
444/2026
Filing Date
04-Feb-2026
Registration No
7/2026
Registration Date
05-Feb-2026
Court
District and Sessions Judge, North, RHC
Judge
466-Principal District and Sessions Judge, North
Decision Date
17-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED
Last updated 17-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BHUPINDER SINGH MEHRA Alias JHOTA Alias HARDEEP
Adv. Yashvir Singh
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Mar-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
Case Summary: The court dismissed Bhupinder Singh Mehra's petition to transfer his criminal trial (arising from FIR 464/2018) to another court. While acknowledging the petitioner's concerns about delay and his incarceration, the court found the trial court was diligent in fixing the shortest possible dates despite its heavy docket of 950 pending cases. The court held that the delay stems from administrative circumstances beyond the trial court's control, no mala fides was established, and transferring the case at this stage would further delay proceedings since other district courts are equally overburdened. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District and Sessions Judge, North
-
23-Feb-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
23-Feb-2026
Misc. cases/purpose
Principal District and Sessions Judge, North
-
06-Feb-2026
Copy Of Judicial ProceedingsView PDF
-
06-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 7/2026
Case Summary: The court dismissed Bhupinder Singh Mehra's petition to transfer his criminal trial (arising from FIR 464/2018) to another court. While acknowledging the petitioner's concerns about delay and his incarceration, the court found the trial court was diligent in fixing the shortest possible dates despite its heavy docket of 950 pending cases. The court held that the delay stems from administrative circumstances beyond the trial court's control, no mala fides was established, and transferring the case at this stage would further delay proceedings since other district courts are equally overburdened. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts