Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.22 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sanjay Chaurasia Son Of Sharda Prasad ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Vimal Kumar ... on 4 May, 2006
In Sanjay Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. 2006 Cr.L.J. 2957 it has been observed that:-
Re-Juvenile-In-Conflict With Law ... vs State Of Orissa on 6 March, 2014
In the case of A. Juvenile Vs. State of Orissa, 2009 Cr.L.J., 2002, it has been held that:
Kamal Kumar And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 20 August, 2002
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 2 of the judgment in Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 has held thus:
Takht Singh And Ors. vs State Of M.P. on 15 December, 1999
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph-2 of the judgment in Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463, has observed as under:-
Dharmendra (Juvenile) vs State Of U.P. & Another on 13 April, 2018
11. The rule in Section 12(1) of the Act is in favour of bail always to a juvenile/ child in conflict with law except when the case falls into one or the other categories denial contemplated by the proviso. It is not the rule about bail in Section 12 of the Act that in case a child in conflict with law is brought before the Board or Court, his case is not to be seen on merits prima facie about his complicity at all for the purpose granting him bail; and all that has been done is to see if his case falls is one or the other exceptions, where he can be denied bail. The rule in Section 12 sanctioning bail universally to every child in conflict with law presupposes that there is a prima facie case against him in the assessment of the Board or the Court based on the evidence placed at that stage. It is where a case against a child in conflict with law is prima facie made out that the rule in Section 12(1) of the Act that sanctions bail as a rule, except the three categories contemplated by the proviso comes into play. It is certainly not the rule, and, in the opinion of the Court cannot be so, that a case on materials and evidence collected not being made out against a child at all, his case has to be tested on the three parameters where bail may be denied presuming that a prima facie case is constructively there. Thus, it would always have to be seen whether a case prima facie on merits against a child in conflict with law is there on the basis of material produced by the prosecution against him. If it is found that a prima facie case on the basis of material produced by the prosecution is there that would have led to a denial of a bail to an adult offender, in that case also the Rule in Section 12(1) of the Act mandates that bail is to be granted to a juvenile/ child in conflict with law except where his case falls into any of the three disentitling categories contemplated by the proviso."
Japani Sahoo vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty on 27 July, 2007
In this context the guidance of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394 may be referred to:-