STATE OF HP(Not Applicable) vs BAIKUNTH LAL(Not Applicable) — CR.A/350/2014

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 378. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HPHC010219792014

Filing Number

CR.A/20264/2014

Filing Date

17-Jul-2014

Registration No

CR.A/350/2014

Registration Date

10-Nov-2014

Judge

Additional Registrar(j)

Coram

Additional Registrar(j)

Bench Type

Single

Category

CRIMINAL APPEAL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL FOR OFFENCES UNDER IPC ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Last updated 14-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 378

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HP(Not Applicable)

    Adv. AG

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BAIKUNTH LAL(Not Applicable)

    Adv. ,Karan Singh Kanwar,Karan Singh Kanwar,NEMO 1123

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Additional Registrar(j)View PDF

    In Criminal Appeal CR.A-350 of 2014, the court ordered the case to be adjourned for two weeks to await verification of surety bonds allegedly furnished by the respondent to the trial court's satisfaction. The respondent's counsel claims the bonds were already submitted within the previously granted timeframe, and the court directed their submission to be verified before the next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF

  4. 16-Dec-2025

    Hearing

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla

  5. 07-Oct-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF

  6. 18-Aug-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF

  7. 01-Sep-2017

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

  8. 01-Sep-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 17-Jul-2014

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR.A/350/2014

casestatus.in Summary

In Criminal Appeal CR.A-350 of 2014, the court ordered the case to be adjourned for two weeks to await verification of surety bonds allegedly furnished by the respondent to the trial court's satisfaction. The respondent's counsel claims the bonds were already submitted within the previously granted timeframe, and the court directed their submission to be verified before the next hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case