AJAY BHANOT
Junaid – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The judgement is being structured in the following conceptual framework to facilitate the discussion:
I. Introduction
II. Submissions of learned counsels
III. Defining the controversy and its origins
IV. Rights of an accused in a bail application
V. Child rights jurisprudence: authorities and principles
VI. Relevant provisions from POCSO Act read with POCSO Rules:
A. Right of victim to receive notice of the bail application and mode of service
B. Applicability of Section 439(IA) Cr.P.C.
C. Case Laws: Discussion
D. Enforcement of rights of the child under POCSO Act r/w POCSO Rules
E. Protecting the identity of the child
VII. Timeline and procedure for maturation of bail application
VIII. Monitoring and implementation of the directions in the judgement
IX. Order on bail application
X. Appendix
I. Introduction:
2. While arguing the bail application Sri Mohd. Mustafa, learned counsel for the applicant submitted at length that the question of service of notice upon the victim raises legal issues of public importance. Considering the general importance of
Eera through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another
Dilip Kumar Sharma vs State of M.P.
Nazir Ahmad vs. The King-Emperor
D.R. Venkatachalam vs. Transport Commissioner and others
Public Interest Foundation vs. Union of India, 2019 (3) SCC 224 paras 99
S. N. Srikantia and Co. vs. Union of India
Noy Vellesina Engineering SPA vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. K. T. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.