State Of Haryana And Others v. Sudhir Kumar And Another
Date of Decision: 17.02.2020 State of Haryana and others .....Appellants versus Sudhir Kumar and another .....Respondents ! " # $#% & # " #
& Present :
Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellants.
Mr. Ankit Bishnoi, Advocate, for the respondent No.1. Mr. D.N.Ganeriwala, Advocate with Mr. S.S.Killianwali, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ****
$#% & # '() *+ Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 65 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 11590 of 2018 whereby the writ petition was disposed of and the order dated 25.04.2018 passed by Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Jails Department, rejecting the application for pre8mature release of the respondent was set aside and the appellant8State of Haryana was directed to reconsider the case of respondent No.1.
RAVINDER SHARMA 2020.02.19 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
,- 2.
In the circumstances, it is evident that the proceedings in the instant case arise from the proceedings initiated under section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the order passed thereunder rejecting the application for pre8mature release. In these circumstances, as the proceedings and the order passed by the learned Single Judge relate to the criminal proceedings out of the Criminal Procedure Code, a letters patent appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in
The appeal is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
! Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No√ RAVINDER SHARMA 2020.02.19 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document