Petitioner claimed he was a juvenile when the FIR was registered and sought anticipatory bail for offences under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and POCSO Act. The court held the question of anticipatory bail did not arise, directing him to appear before police and be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.710 of 2024
Crl.O.P.No.710 of 2024
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
The petitioner/first accused, should not have been termed as an accused since he was a Juvenile at the time of occurrence of the offence in Cr.No. 11 of 2023. He seeks anticipatory bail. The provision of law under which the FIR had been registered are under Section 10 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 and Section 16 read with 17 of the POCSO Act.
20.02.2024
1
Crl.O.P.No.710 of 2024
vsg
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
vsg
Crl.O.P.No.710 of 2024
20.02.2024
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a petitioner who was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and POCSO Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
C.V.Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
