SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Pat) 1038

BIRENDRA KUMAR
Aditya Kumar @ Aditya Dev – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellant : Mrs. Sudha Chandra.
For the Respondent: Mr. Binod Bihari Singh.

BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.:–Let the defect (s) be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court.

2. Heard the parties.

3. This is an appeal under Section 101(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against refusal of the prayer for bail to the appellant by order dated 02.01.2021 passed by the learned Children Court-cum-A.D.J.-VI, Vaishali at Hajipur in Bidupur P.S.Case No.509 of 2019.

4. The appellant was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board on the basis of school documents and entry of date of birth in the Adhar Card as well as opinion of the Medical Board.

5. The appellant is accused in the aforesaid case carrying allegation of commission of firearm injury to the deceased. The impugned order reveals that prayer has been refused by observing, “seeing the gravity of the matter and his direct involvement in the said heinous offence, this Court does think it fit, just proper and legal to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the bail petition of the petitioner is being rejected hereby.”

6. Bail of a juvenile in conflict with law is considered in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protecti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top