SHISHIR TIWARI vs NEERAJ @ BABLOO — Crl.A. No. 697/2013

Case under Section II-D. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010034672013

Filing Date

30-Jan-2013

Registration No

Crl.A. No. 697/2013

Diary Number

3467/2013

Order Date

12-Oct-2023

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section II-D

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHISHIR TIWARI

    Adv. NISCHAL KUMAR NEERAJ[P-1]

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NEERAJ @ BABLOO

    Adv. MUKESH JAIN[R-1] B. V. BALARAM DAS (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-2] [Pr] SHREEKANT NEELAPPA TERDAL[R-2]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Oct-2023

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 12-Oct-2023

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

  4. 14-Sep-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 07-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 07-Sep-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 27-Jul-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 27-Jul-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 14-Sep-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 14-Sep-2015

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 18-Feb-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 18-Feb-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 04-Dec-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 04-Dec-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 17-Sep-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 17-Sep-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 15-Jul-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 27-Feb-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 29-Apr-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 30-Jan-2013

    Case filed

    Registration No. Crl.A. No. 697/2013

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Crl.A. No. 697/2013 (Shishir Tiwari v. Neeraj @ Babloo) Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on October 12, 2023, upholding the High Court of Delhi's decision granting juvenile justice protections to Respondent No. 1 (Neeraj), who was convicted of murdering a child and woman. Despite the heinous nature of the crimes, the Court found Respondent No. 1 was below 18 years old at the time of the offense based on school records and an ossification test, and he had already served 7½ years in custody—exceeding the maximum sentence a Juvenile Justice Board could impose. The Court rejected the appellant's procedural objections and confirmed juvenility protections were properly applied. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case