STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHH HOME DEPTT. STATION INCHARGE vs AJAY PRAKASH MISHRA — Crl.A. No. 2016 - 2018/2012
Case under Section II. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010067902012
Filing Date
24-Feb-2012
Registration No
Crl.A. No. 2016 - 2018/2012
Diary Number
6790/2012
Order Date
08-Apr-2021
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 05-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHH HOME DEPTT. STATION INCHARGE
Adv. ARDHENDUMAULI KUMAR PRASAD (Dead / Retired / Elevated)
Respondent(s)
-
1.AJAY PRAKASH MISHRA
Adv. VISHNU SHARMA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Apr-2021
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
-
06-Apr-2021
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
-
24-Mar-2021
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
-
04-Mar-2021
After Week/Month/Vacation
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari
-
18-Feb-2021
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari
-
10-Feb-2021
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-May-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Feb-2014
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Apr-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Mar-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Dec-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Jul-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
30-Apr-2012
ROPView PDF
-
27-Apr-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Mar-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Feb-2012
Case filed
Registration No. Crl.A. No. 2016 - 2018/2012
-
23-Feb-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Jan-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Dec-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Oct-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
Common Record of Proceedings — heard with connected matters
Lead case: Crl.A. No. 2019 - 2021/2012
On 07/05/2014, the Supreme Court heard criminal appeals filed by Archana Tulsiyani against Ajay Prakash Mishra and others, which included applications for non-bailable warrant of arrest. The Court found that additional documents required by previous orders had not been filed within the stipulated time. The matter was directed to be processed for listing before the Hon'ble Court as per rules. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts