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

2018 Supreme(All) 661

J.J.MUNIR
DHARMENDRA (JUVENILE) – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Akhilesh Kumar Mishra for the Revisionist; G.A. for the Opposite Party.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble J.J. Munir, J.—Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist today is taken on record.

2. A perusal of the office report dated 11.4.2018 shows that notice upon opposite party no.2 has been served personally. Service is held to be sufficient. No one has put in appearance on behalf opposite party no.2.

3. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shyam Dhar Yadav, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

4. This revision is directed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-I)/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Sant Kabr Nagar, dated 25.10.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2017, under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereafter referred to as the ‘’Act’) dismissing the said appeal and affirming an order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Sant Kabir Nagar refusing bail to the revisionist in Case Crime No.1384 of 2016, under Sections 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

5. Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the First Information Report gi

















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