Court : Madhya Pradesh Gwalior
(1) This revision petition preferred under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is directed against an order dated 2/6/11 passed in Criminal Appeal No.197/11, by the Sessions Judge, Guna (M.P.), rejecting thereby an application of the petitioner-accused seeking his release on bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2000. (2) Facts of the case, as borne out from the record of the case are that on 20/4/11, accused-petitioner accompanied with his sister, namely, Priya and one other co-accused Chandrapal committed murder of Varun by inflicting him knife and Gandasa blows. It is alleged by the prosecution that the sister of the accused-petitioner fell in love with deceased but on account of her different caste, the deceased refused her to marry, which resulted into his death. The accused was arrested and brought before the Juvenile Board. He submitted an application for bail which was rejected vide order dated 18/5/11. Being ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on : February 06, 2018 Judgment Delivered on : February 13, 2018 W.P.(C) 6136/2017 AKHILESH KUMAR Through : Ms.Saahila Lamba & Mr.T.S.Dager, Advocates. ........ Petitioner versus ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr.J.K.Singh, St.Counsel for Railways with Ms.Madhulika Aggarwal, Advocate. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J.1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the speaking order dated 11.05.2017, whereby he has been discharged and his candidature for appointment as a Constable in the RPF/RPSF has been cancelled.2. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are that in the year 2011, the respondents published an advertisement for the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force/Railway Protection Special Force. The petitioner appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000CriLJ1918; 2000(1)MPLJ507
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. The applicant was taken into custody in connection with Crime No. 329/99 instituted for an offence punishable under Section 20(i)(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') on the allegation that he was in possession of 15 gms. of 'Ganja'.2. The applicant filed an application for obtaining concession of bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal on the ground that he was below 16 years of age, and hence, he was entitled to the benefit as envisaged under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and under Section 437(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').3. It was put forth before the learned Special Judge that the date of birth of the petitioner is 7-10-85 and in support of the same certificate of the school and marksheet were produced. The learned Special Judge appreciating the documents brought on record and observing the appearance of the petitioner came t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 75(1993)CLT803; 1993CriLJ1908; 1993(I)OLR464
G.B. Pattnaik, J.1. An interesting question of law has been urged in this case by Mr. Dhal appearing for the petitioner invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of the Special Judge, Keonjhar, who has refused the petitioner's prayer for bail, as he is involved in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'N. D. P. S. Act'). The said question is whether in view of Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, a 'juvenile' as defined in Section 2(h) of the Act is entitled to be released on bail even if he is accused of committing an offenee under the N. D. P. S. Act notwithstanding the provisions of Section 37 of the said Act.2. To appreciate this contention in its proper perspective, it would be appropriate to notice the two provisions which are extracted hereinbelow in extenso :Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 reads as follows :'18. Bail and cu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
In re Gault - 387 U.S. 1 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) In re Gault No. 116 Argued December 6, 1966 Decided May 15, 1967 387 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA Syllabus Appellants' 15-year-old son, Gerald Gault, was taken into custody as the result of a complaint that he had made lewd telephone calls. After hearings before a juvenile court judge, Gerald was ordered committed to the State Industrial School as a juvenile delinquent until he should reach majority. Appellants brought a habeas corpus action in the state courts to challenge the constitutionality of the Arizona Juvenile Code and the procedure actually used in Gerald's case, on the ground of denial of various procedural due process rights. The State Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the writ. Agreeing that the constitutional guarantee of due process applies to proceedings in which juveniles are charged as delinquents, the court held that the Arizona Juvenile Code impliedly in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008CriLJ2943
S.R. Dongaonkar, J.1. The appellant No. 1 Suresh and appellant No. 2 Hivraj are taking exception to the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned First Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, dated 29-3-2006 in Sessions Trial No. 72/2004 by which he has convicted these appellants for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C., and appellant No. 2 Hivraj being convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506(II) of the I.P.C. in addition. They were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer R.I. for 6 months for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C.2. Brief facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants were that; they are resident of Boda, Tah. Tiroda, District Gondia. Prosecutrix Sangharsha PW-1 is a minor girl aged about 15 years. At the time of incident, her father was serving in Mahindra & Mahindra Automotive concern at Nagpur. She along with her mother PW-3 Sangita, b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Petitioners Jaspreeet Singh and Amandeep Singh figure as accused in case titled State vs. Jaspreet Singh and anr. facing trial for charge under Sections 302/341/34 of RPC before learned Sessions Judge Jammu. Their plea for enlargement on bail was turned down by learned Sessions Judge inspite of finding recorded to the effect that both of them were below 18 years of age when the offence is alleged to have been committed. Unfazed by declining of bail at the hands of learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners have approached this Court through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 498 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail. It is averred in the petition that during the pendency of Challan, petitioners filed an application before learned Sessions Judge claiming bail on the ground that they were juveniles at the time of alleged occurrence which led to an inquiry in which it was proved that the petitioners were below 18 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. However, learned Sessions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Kent v. United States - 383 U.S. 541 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) Kent v. United States No. 104 Argued January 19, 1966 Decided March 21, 1966 383 U.S. 541 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner was arrested at the age of 16 in connection with charges of housebreaking, robbery and rape. As a juvenile, he was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the District of Columbia Juvenile Court unless that court, after "full investigation," should waive jurisdiction over him and remit him for trial to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Petitioner's counsel filed a motion in the Juvenile Court for a hearing on the question of waiver, and for access to the Juvenile Court's Social Service file which had been accumulated on petitioner during his probation for a prior offense. The Juvenile Court did not rule on these motions. It entered an order waiving...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania - 403 U.S. 528 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971) McKeiver v. Pennsylvania No. 322 Argued December 10, 1970 Decided June 21, 1971 * 403 U.S. 528 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus The requests of appellants in No. 322 for a jury trial were denied, and they were adjudged juvenile delinquents under Pennsylvania law. The State Supreme Court, while recognizing the applicability to juveniles of certain due process procedural safeguards, held that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial in juvenile court. Appellants argue for a right to a jury trial because they were tried in proceedings "substantially similar to a criminal trial," and note that the press is generally present at the trial, and that members of the public also enter the courtroom. Petitioners in No. 128 were adjudged juvenile delinquents in North Carolina, where their jury trial requests were denied, and in proceedings where ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Breed v. Jones - 421 U.S. 519 (1975) U.S. Supreme Court Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975) Breed v. Jones No. 73-1995 Argued February 25-26, 1975 Decided May 27, 1975 421 U.S. 519 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The prosecution of respondent as an adult in California Superior Court, after an adjudicatory finding in Juvenile Court that he had violated a criminal statute and a subsequent finding that he was unfit for treatment as a juvenile, violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 421 U. S. 528 -541. (a) Respondent was put in jeopardy at the Juvenile Court adjudicatory hearing, whose object was to determine whether he had committed acts that violated a criminal law and whose potential consequences included both the stigma inherent in that determination and the deprivation of liberty for many years. Jeopardy attached when the Juvenile Court, as...
Tag this Judgment!