Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.45 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 377 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Entire Act]
Chetan Anand Parashar Alias Rahul ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 December, 2014
In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 9.1.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2019 (Rahul Sharma vs State of UP and another) and the order of Juvenile Justice Board, Aligarh dated 29.11.2019 passed in Misc. Case No.53 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.175 of 2019 u/s 377, 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Khair District Aligarh, are hereby set aside and reversed. The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.
Japani Sahoo vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty on 27 July, 2007
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and in view of the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and the view taken by the Hon'ble Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), Dharmendra (Juvenile) vs. State of U.P. and others (supra), Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (supra) and Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. (supra), this Court is of the view that the present criminal revision may be allowed and the revisionist may be released on bail.
Sadhu Saran Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 26 February, 2016
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also in the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and in view of the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and the view taken by the Hon'ble Court in the cases of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), Dharmendra (Juvenile) vs. State of U.P. and others (supra), Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (supra) and Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs. State of U.P. (supra), this Court is of the view that the present criminal revision may be allowed and the revisionist may be released on bail.