JAGDISH(Not Applicable) vs CHAMEL SINGH(Not Applicable) Advocate - Komal Chaudhary — CRMMO/1275/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010816202025

Filing Number

CRMMO/12222/2025

Filing Date

23-Dec-2025

Registration No

CRMMO/1275/2025

Registration Date

30-Dec-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 14-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 528

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JAGDISH(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Vinod Chauhan,Aanchal Singh,Aanchal Singh, ,Nandita,Vivek Thakur,Aanchal Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.CHAMEL SINGH(Not Applicable) Advocate - Komal Chaudhary

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Himachal Pradesh set aside the dismissal of a criminal appeal that occurred due to the petitioner's non-appearance caused by heavy rainfall and road blockage. The court held that criminal cases cannot be dismissed merely for lack of representation; instead, courts must appoint an amicus curiae (legal aid counsel) to represent the accused and decide appeals on merits, as this protects the accused's constitutional right to liberty under Article 21. The appeal was restored to be heard on its merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh

  4. 31-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF

  5. 31-Dec-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 23-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRMMO/1275/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Himachal Pradesh set aside the dismissal of a criminal appeal that occurred due to the petitioner's non-appearance caused by heavy rainfall and road blockage. The court held that criminal cases cannot be dismissed merely for lack of representation; instead, courts must appoint an amicus curiae (legal aid counsel) to represent the accused and decide appeals on merits, as this protects the accused's constitutional right to liberty under Article 21. The appeal was restored to be heard on its merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case