SHISHIR TIWARI vs NEERAJ @ BABLOO — Crl.A. No. 697/2013
Case under Section II-D. Status: 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
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHISHIR TIWARI
Adv. NISCHAL KUMAR NEERAJ[P-1]
Respondent(s)
-
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
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Oct-2023
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Oct-2023
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
-
14-Sep-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Sep-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Sep-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Jul-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Jul-2016
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Sep-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Sep-2015
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Feb-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Feb-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Dec-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Dec-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Sep-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Sep-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Jul-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Feb-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Apr-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Jan-2013
Case filed
Registration No. Crl.A. No. 697/2013
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