GAJENDRA SINGH NARUKA vs State Advocate - APO — 20/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 440. Disposed: Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing on 24th March 2026.
Cr. Revision
CNR: RJAL010003452026
Filing Number
245/2026
Filing Date
28-01-2026
Registration No
20/2026
Registration Date
03-02-2026
Court
DJ ADJ Alwar District HQ
Judge
1-District And Sessions Judge
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GAJENDRA SINGH NARUKA
Adv. HIMANSHU BAGRAHATTA
Respondent(s)
State Advocate - APO
SANJAY SHARMA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District And Sessions Judge
Disposed
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
Awaiting Services of notices/ summons
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Awaiting Services of notices/ summons |
| 20-02-2026 | Awaiting Services of notices/ summons |
| 10-02-2026 | Awaiting Services of notices/ summons |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Session Court of Alwar allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Gajendra Singh Naruka against the lower court's order dated 04.06.2025, which had terminated his cross-examination opportunity. The court found that the petitioner's counsel had presented a valid adjournment request citing engagement in another court, and the lower court's refusal to grant another opportunity for cross-examination was unjustified; accordingly, the court set aside the lower court's order and directed it to provide the petitioner one more opportunity for cross-examination, with the understanding that any subsequent non-appearance would result in automatic closure of cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Session Court of Alwar allowed the criminal revision petition filed by Gajendra Singh Naruka against the lower court's order dated 04.06.2025, which had terminated his cross-examination opportunity. The court found that the petitioner's counsel had presented a valid adjournment request citing engagement in another court, and the lower court's refusal to grant another opportunity for cross-examination was unjustified; accordingly, the court set aside the lower court's order and directed it to provide the petitioner one more opportunity for cross-examination, with the understanding that any subsequent non-appearance would result in automatic closure of cross-examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts