Case Title: State of Punjab vs. Pappu Raj
Criminal Appeal No.: 194/2017
Diary No.: 33042/2015
Date of Hearing: 11th June 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan

Key Proceedings and Orders

1. Nature of Appeal:
   Criminal Appeal filed by the State of Punjab against the respondent, Pappu Raj, likely challenging an acquittal, conviction, or sentence in a lower court judgment.

2. Representation:
   Appellant (State of Punjab):
   Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
   Mr. Mohit Siwach, Adv.
   Mr. Abhishek Budhiraja, Adv.
   Respondent (Pappu Raj):
   Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv.
   Ms. Mithu Jain, AOR

3. Court’s Decision:
   The matter was adjourned as requested by the respondent’s counsel, to be listed after partial court working days.
   The appellant’s counsel was permitted to file the custody certificate of the respondent (likely to verify Pappu Raj’s current incarceration status).

Judgment Research Format

Case Citation: State of Punjab vs. Pappu Raj, Crl.A. No. 194/2017 (Supreme Court of India).

Background:

• The appeal arises from a criminal case where the State of Punjab is contesting a decision (possibly acquittal or sentencing) related to Pappu Raj. The exact nature of the impugned order is not specified in the excerpt.

Legal Issues:

1. Procedural Adjournment: Whether the respondent’s request for adjournment was justified.

2. Custody Verification: Relevance of the respondent’s custody status to the appeal’s merits.

Court’s Observations:

• The Court granted adjournment to accommodate the respondent’s counsel, ensuring fair representation.

• Allowed submission of the custody certificate, indicating the need to confirm the respondent’s physical presence or incarceration details for further proceedings.

Outcome:

• Matter adjourned to a future date (post partial court working days).

• Custody certificate to be placed on record by the appellant.

Significance:

• Highlights the judiciary’s flexibility in procedural matters to ensure both parties are adequately heard.

• Emphasizes the importance of verifying custody status in criminal appeals, especially where liberty or sentencing is involved.

Conclusion:
The order is interim and procedural, deferring substantive hearings to a later date. The custody certificate will likely aid the Court in assessing the appeal’s urgency or logistical requirements.