Jharkhand High Court directs AIIMS, Deogarh to submit report on availability of Burn Ward
Jharkhand High Court: The division bench of Ravi Ranjan, C.J., and Sujit Narayan Prasad, J., took suo motu cognizance of
Jharkhand High Court: The division bench of Ravi Ranjan, C.J., and Sujit Narayan Prasad, J., took suo motu cognizance of
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by a woman alleging rape charges under Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Protection of Children
Delhi High Court: In a case seeking grant of medical termination of pregnancy by a 16-year-old rape victim (‘petitioner’), Yashwant Varma J.,
Gujarat High Court: The Division Bench of S.H. Vora and Rajendra M. Sareen, JJ. dismissed a criminal appeal which was
“It would be an injustice to separate or to divide a well knitted family unit.”
Sexual abuse resulting in tying of knot between the victim and the accused in violation of provisions of law or birth of a child, does not mitigate the act of the petitioner in any manner, since the consent of a minor is immaterial and inconsequential in law
Allahabad High Court: Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. allowed a bail application in a case registered under sections 376, 506 Penal Code, 1860
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Rohit Arya and Milind Ramesh Phadke, JJ. took strong exception to the functioning of
“In a tradition-bound society like ours, particularly in rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there was a delay in lodging the FIR.”
Bombay High Court: A.S. Chandurkar and Urmila Joshi-Phalke, JJ. allowed a writ petition which was filed by a minor victim of sexual
Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of SK Sahoo and M S Raman, JJ. disposed of the petition leaving the petitioner with
Gujarat High Court: Samir Dave, J., granted bail to the accused while prohibiting him from accessing the society in which the claimed
Meghalaya High Court: W. Diengdoh, J. allowed a petition which was filed with a prayer to set aside and quash the criminal
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Srinagar: Sanjay Dhar, J., expressed that, in the cases involving offences of serious nature falling
Bombay High Court: Anuja Prabhudessai, J., observed that touching private parts and kissing on the lips of a minor would not constitute
Gujarat High Court: A.S. Supehia, J. allowed a bail application in connection with FIR filed for the offences under Sections 363, 366,
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of V.M. Deshpande and Amit Borkar, JJ., expressed that a transaction by a natural guardian of
Tripura High Court: Arindam Lodh, J. partly allowed an appeal which was filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
Gauhati High Court: Arun Dev Choudhury, J., held that sexual offences against minor cannot be compromised by parents. An FIR was lodged
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Subodh Abhyankar and Satyendra Kumar Singh, JJ., dismissed an appeal which was filed being