Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Transfer of Trial, Treating Juvenile as Adult in Heinous Offense Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Chandigarh, May 3, 2023: In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, has upheld the transfer of trial and treated a juvenile in a heinous offense case as an adult. The decision came in a Criminal Revision Petition (CRR-452-2023) filed by the juvenile, Bholu, who was in conflict with the law, against the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The case pertained to an incident that occurred on September 8, 2017, in Gurugram, where the juvenile was charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Arms Act, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

The High Court, after careful consideration of the previous orders and appeals, including those made before the Supreme Court, found that the Juvenile Justice Board had followed the directions of the apex court and conducted a detailed assessment of the mental and physical capacity of the juvenile. The Board concluded that the juvenile possessed the necessary capacity to understand the consequences of the offense and transferred the trial to the Children's Court under Section 18(3) of the JJ Act.

The Court further observed that the Board had strictly adhered to the Supreme Court's directions and found no illegality in its decision. The detailed assessment included factors such as mental age, intelligence functioning, clinical assessment, social investigation report, and family circumstances. The Court also took note of the absence of evidence regarding parental neglect, abuse, or substance abuse by the juvenile.

03.05.2023

Bholu, a ‘Juvinile in conflict with law’ vs Central Bureau of Inves ga on

Latest Legal News