KAMESHWAR BARAIK vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PRABHU DAYAL AGRAWAL, ,ARBIND KUMAR — Cr.M.P./1372/2024

Case under An Application U/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 7,E,C,ACT. Next hearing: : -.

CNR: JHHC010143202024

Next Hearing

: -

Filing Number

Cr.M.P./10263/2024

Filing Date

26-04-2024

Registration No

Cr.M.P./1372/2024

Registration Date

01-05-2024

Judge

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

Coram

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Quashing Matter ( 206 )

Sub-Category

Quashing of Order ( 6 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal Section

Acts & Sections

An Application U/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 7,E,C,ACT

Petitioner(s)

KAMESHWAR BARAIK

Adv. SURAJ KUMAR,AAYUSH OJHA,AAYUSH OJHA, ,SUBHAS KONGARI,SUMITRA KUMARI,ROBIN KUMAR,AAYUSH OJHA

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PRABHU DAYAL AGRAWAL, ,ARBIND KUMAR

UTTAM KUMAR

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

23-08-2024

LAWAZIMA

02-04-2026

Admission

26-03-2026

Admission

20-03-2026

Admission

13-03-2026

Admission

Orders

06-05-2026
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

Summary: The High Court of Jharkhand granted an adjournment in Cr.M.P. No. 1372/2024 on the condition that petitioner Kameshwar Baraik deposits Rs. 2,000 with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within two weeks. The petition will be dismissed without further notice if the deposit is not made within the stipulated timeframe. An interlocutory application was separately rejected as not pressed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Jharkhand granted an adjournment in Cr.M.P. No. 1372/2024 on the condition that petitioner Kameshwar Baraik deposits Rs. 2,000 with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within two weeks. The petition will be dismissed without further notice if the deposit is not made within the stipulated timeframe. An interlocutory application was separately rejected as not pressed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case