English Typing Test

AFR CourtNo.-84 Case:-CRIMINALREVISIONNo.-1407of2021 Revisionist:-Yogesh OppositeParty:-StateofU.P.andAnother CounselforRevisionist:-SureshChandraPandey CounselforOppositeParty:-G.A. Hon'bleDr.YogendraKumarSrivastava,J. 1.TheseminalquestionwhichisbeforetheCourtatthisstageoftheproceedingsisastowhetherinarevisionunderSection102oftheJuvenileJustice(CareandProtectionofChildren)Act,20151,inamatterrelatingtoconsiderationofbailtoa'childinconflictwithlaw',thecomplainant/victimistobeaffordedanopportunityofbeingheard. 2.Thepresentcriminalrevisionhasbeenfiledagainsttheorderdated24.06.2021passedbytheAdditionalSessionsJudge/SpecialJudgePOCSOAct,MathurainJuvenileCriminalAppealNo.39of2021(YogeshV.StateofU.P.andOrs.)underSection101oftheJJAct,arisingoutoforderdated24.05.2021passedbyInchargePrincipalMagistrate,JuvenileJusticeBoardinCaseNo.77of2020,arisingoutofCrimeNo.568of2020,underSections147,148,149,323,342,302/34oftheIndiaPenalCode2atPoliceStation-Vrindavan,District-Mathura. 3.HeardShriSaurabhPandey,appearingalongwithShriSureshChandraPandey,learnedcounselfortherevisionistandShriVinodKant,learnedAdditionalAdvocateGeneralassistedbyShriPankajSaxena,learnedAdditionalGovernmentAdvocate-IfortheState-Oppositeparty. 4.Thefactsofthecase,asreflectedfromtheavermentsintheaffidavitaccompanyingthememoofrevision,indicatethattheproceedingswereinitiatedpursuanttoanFIRdated22.09.2020registeredasCaseCrimeno.568of2020,underSections147,148,149,323,342,302/34ofthePenalCodeatPoliceStation-Vrindavan,District-Mathura.AspertheFIRallegationstherevisionistalongwithotherco-accusedhadtiedupthevictimontoachaffcutterandhadbeatenhimwithstickstillhedied,andthereafter,theyhadfledawayfromthesceneofcrime.Thepostmortemreportshowedcauseofdeathasshockduetoante-mortemheadinjury.ThestatementofthewitnesseswererecordedduringthecourseofinvestigationandthereafterthepolicefiledchargesheetunderSections147,148,149,323,342,302/34ofthePenalCode. 5.TheageoftherevisionistwasdeterminedbytheJuvenileJusticeBoard3videorderdated22.03.2021,as16years6monthsand16daysonthedateoftheincident.TheDistrictProbationOfficersubmitteditsreportbeforetheBoardon10.02.2021andthereafter,thebailapplicationwasrejectedbytheBoardbyorderdated24.05.2021afterrecordingthattherewaslackoffamilycontrolovertheaccusedandthathisinvolvementintheheinousoffencewasduetohisassociationwithpersonsofcriminalnatureandforthereasonoflackofmoralvaluesandfamilycontroltherewaspossibilityofhisinfluencinganddestroyingtheprosecutionevidence.Itwasobservedthattherewasapossibilityoftheaccusedbeingexposedtomoral,physicalandpsychologicaldangerandthathisreleasewoulddefeattheendsofjustice.Accordingly,thebailapplicationwasrejected.Aggrievedagainsttheaforesaidorder,therevisionistpreferredanappealunderSection101whichwasalsorejectedbytheAdditionalSessions
0:00