AMANDEEP SINGH vs NARENDER GAMBHIR — CRR/1277/2026

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010761922026

Filing Number

CRR/35405/2026

Filing Date

04-May-2026

Registration No

CRR/1277/2026

Registration Date

11-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Category

37.1 - CRIMINAL REVISION (I.O.) ( 224 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AMANDEEP SINGH

    Adv. BHUPINDER SINGH KUNDRA

  2. 2.AMANDEEP SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NARENDER GAMBHIR

  2. 2.AMANDEEP SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Rajesh BhardwajView PDF

    Case Summary: CRR/1277/2026 Amandeep Singh was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment with compensation of Rs. 6,07,500. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge suspended his sentence conditional on depositing 20% of compensation; however, Singh claimed financial inability to comply. The High Court directed the appellate court to prioritize and decide Singh's appeal within 60 days (extendable to 90 days maximum) where appellants cannot afford mandatory deposits, citing precedent that such deposits should not impede access to justice for financially disadvantaged convicts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 04-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRR/1277/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRR/1277/2026 Amandeep Singh was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment with compensation of Rs. 6,07,500. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge suspended his sentence conditional on depositing 20% of compensation; however, Singh claimed financial inability to comply. The High Court directed the appellate court to prioritize and decide Singh's appeal within 60 days (extendable to 90 days maximum) where appellants cannot afford mandatory deposits, citing precedent that such deposits should not impede access to justice for financially disadvantaged convicts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case