Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
10 judgments · newest first · showing 1–10
The revisionist, through the juvenile’s natural guardian, filed a criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, seeking to set aside the Juvenile Justice Board’s order dated 27‑01‑2026 and the appellate court’s order dated 03‑07‑2026, and to obtain bail …
The appellant, a juvenile aged 15 years, 10 months, was charged under Section 64(1) of the BNS Act, Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and several provisions of the SC/ST Act. The Children Court denied his regular bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, …
The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.4857 of 2025 challenging an order dated 10.03.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge‑Children's Court, Jehanabad, which upheld a Juvenile Justice Board order. The appellant argued that the proper remedy after exhausting the appeal route was a criminal revision …
The appeal concerned the rejection of regular bail for a 17‑year‑old accused of raping a 17‑year‑old girl, where the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 applied. The Juvenile Justice Board had preliminarily assessed the appellant as mature and ordered trial as an adult, but the Children …
The revisionist, a juvenile detained in a Juvenile Care Home, filed a criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, seeking to set aside the Juvenile Justice Board’s order denying bail and the appellate court’s affirmation of that order. The revisionist …
The High Court entertained a criminal revision filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 on behalf of a 16‑year‑old juvenile (revisionist) who was in a Juvenile Care Home. The revision challenged the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional …
The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against a High Court order that granted bail to the accused Anurudh and directed that a medical board determine the victim's age in all POCSO cases. The accused was charged under IPC sections 363 and 366 and POCSO sections 7 and 8 for allegedly abducting a …
Rahul Kumar Yadav was convicted under Sections 302 and 394 of the IPC and Section 27(2) of the Arms Act, receiving a death sentence which was later commuted to life imprisonment. He claimed that he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence (27 July 2011) and filed applications under Section …
The appellant Karan was convicted under IPC and the POCSO Act for heinous offences and sentenced to death, which the High Court affirmed. While the appeals were pending, the appellant claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence, prompting a trial‑court inquiry that established his date of …
The appellant Satya Deo was convicted of murder under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence (aged 16 years 7 months) and sought relief under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Supreme Court …
