“The classification of the offences under the Criminal Procedure Code clearly shows that if the offences are punishable with imprisonment for less than three years, the offences are bailable and non-cognizable.”
“Ironically, the concerned SHO in his report on one hand mentions that the petitioner’s behaviour is satisfactory, but in the same breadth, also mentions that he can have adverse impact on law, order and security in the area, without assigning any reasons.”
“Conviction can be made only on the basis of the testimony of the prosecutrix without any independent corroboration. However, in such case, the testimony of the prosecutrix has to be of a sterling quality.”
“This Court must record its concerned about the manner, in which, the mandatory provisions of Section 33(7) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are being violated, with impunity.”
“The delay in lodging FIR in cases of child rape should be taken with much sensitivity and the Courts concerned must judiciously weigh all the surrounding factors which led to such delay as discarding the otherwise meritorious case of the victim merely because there was failure to knock at the portals of justice in a time-bound manner would mean nothing but adding a pinch of salt to the victim’s injury.”
The Court also said that prima facie, it appeared that there was no mens rea involved.
The Court observed that the prosecution evidence on being scrutinised should inspire the confidence of the Court regarding the factum of sexual intent being involved in the case in hand.
A Child-in-conflict with law (CIL) was granted bail considering that she was a young girl; her family was poor; she had less understanding to distinguish between right and wrong and her family atmosphere was good. The Court also discussed situations in which a CIL could be denied bail even in bailable offences as per Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The Court observed that the convict was a young boy of 20 years, who has no father, and was shouldering the responsibility of his widowed sister and her son, hence, imprisonment for a term of 14 years would be adequate, to teach him a lesson.
Allahabad high Court: In a second anticipatory bail application for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Penal Code,
Manipur High Court: In a case where the criminal appeal was pending and the applicant convicted under Section 6 of the Protection
Sikkim High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Meenakshi Madan Rai and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, JJ., while allowing an appeal, found error
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Vipin Sanghi and I.S. Mehta, JJ. modified the sentence of the appellant convicted under
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., allowed a criminal revision petition filed against the order of