Ajay Kumar Jaisawal vs State of UP and others — 412/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 07th March 2026.
Criminal Revision
CNR: UPFZ010068002025
Filing Number
6300/2025
Filing Date
10-11-2025
Registration No
412/2025
Registration Date
10-11-2025
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
1-District & Session Judge
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ajay Kumar Jaisawal
Adv. KAMLESH KUMAR SINGH
Respondent(s)
State of UP and others
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District & Session Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 20-02-2026 | Judgement |
| 18-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 13-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Ayodhya Session Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by Ajay Kumar Jayaswal against the lower court's order dated 18.10.2025. The court found that the lower court properly rejected the accused's application under Section 311 CrPC (calling a witness for examination) because he had already been given an opportunity for cross-examination which he failed to utilize, and subsequently filed the same application after its earlier rejection on 25.11.2017 without satisfactory grounds. The court held that the lower court's order was legally sound and did not contain any irregularities, impropriety, or illegality. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Ayodhya Session Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by Ajay Kumar Jayaswal against the lower court's order dated 18.10.2025. The court found that the lower court properly rejected the accused's application under Section 311 CrPC (calling a witness for examination) because he had already been given an opportunity for cross-examination which he failed to utilize, and subsequently filed the same application after its earlier rejection on 25.11.2017 without satisfactory grounds. The court held that the lower court's order was legally sound and did not contain any irregularities, impropriety, or illegality. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts