Nandlal Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p
High Court
10 Feb 2017 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Nandlal Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p
Date of order
10 Feb 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Nandlal Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p, the High Court (2017) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FORRAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 760/2017.
Nandlal Sharma S/o Sh. Banshidhar Sharma, Aged About 62 Years, R/o L 54, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Durgapura, Jaipur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
2. Vinita Sharma W/o Sh. Ninad Sharma, D/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, R/o 14, A.R.S.E.B. Colony, D Block, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sanjay Sharma
For State : Shri R.R. Gurjar
For Respondent (s) : Shri V.R. Bajwa
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
10/2/2017
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits hemay be permitted to withdraw the petition to enablethe petitioner to take up all the pleas available to himbefore the trial court.
Ordered accordingly.
However, personal appearance of the petitioner
before the trial court shall remain exempted subject tothe following conditions:-
i. petitioner shall be represented through counsel;
ii. shall not delay/stall the trial proceedings;
iii. Shall not dispute his identity as accused;
iv. shall have no objection if the prosecution evidenceis recorded in his absence but in the presence of hiscounsel;
v. shall appear before the Trial Court as and whenrequired by the Trial Court;
vi. any other condition which the learned Trial Courtmay impose.
(SABINA)J.
Mrg.
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.