Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M. Kumar, J.
Atul Kumar and another - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1362 of 2003.
Decided On : 19 September, 2003
Juvenile Justice - Bail - Section 53 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, which entitles a 'juvenile in conflict with law' to bail unless there is evidence showing that the release of the juvenile on bail is likely to bring him in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The court also referred to judgments such as Sahabuddin @ Shabboo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana, and Gopi Nath Ghosh v. State of W.B. to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are 'juvenile in conflict with law', were facing allegations under Sections 302/323/147/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Their application for bail was initially dismissed by the Duty Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of Section 12 of the Act and should be granted bail, as they were below the age of 18 years at the time of the alleged crime and there was no evidence showing that their release on bail would bring them in association with any known criminal or expose them to moral, physical, or psychological danger.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, as juveniles in conflict with law, were entitled to bail under Section 12 of the Act, and whether there was evidence to support the denial of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the basic object of the Act is to prevent and treat juvenile delinquency, and a child-friendly approach has been stressed as one of the objects of the Act. It emphasized that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and cannot be nullified by permitting the prosecution to shield behind technicalities.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the orders of the Courts below were set aside. The petitioners were held entitled to grant of bail under Section 12 of the Act, and they were ordered to be released on bail.
JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J. - This petition filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for brevity, the Act) is directed against the order dated 12.6.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, declining the application of the petitioners. The petitioners who are "juvenile in conflict with law", within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act are facing allegations in case F.I.R. No. 99 dated 29.3.2003, under Sections 302/323/147/149 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at P.S. City Tohana. The allegations in the F.I.R. are as under :-
"Statement of Jaibir Singh son of Ramphal Caste Jat resident of Bhodi aged about 18 years : stated that I am a resident of aforementioned address and am a student of Government Senior Secondary School Tohana and study in 10+1. Today on 29.3.2003 at about 9.15 AM, I alongwith Rajinder son of Siri Ram, Jat resident of Bhodi who is studying alongwith me in 10+1 were going to School by Atul Bus service. When this Bus reached Village Amavi, the Checker of the bus namely, Suresh asked for the travelling ticket and I replied that we are students and asked us to show the I. Card and then I and Rajinder said that today we have forgotten to take the I. Card and we will produce the I. Card tomorrow and further said that if you want money for the tickets you can take and we will take back the money after showing the I. Card. On this Suresh started abusing by the names of mother and sister and said you will be taught a lesson for not buying the tickets. When the Bus reached the Govt. College Tohana then Suresh, Checker got down near the College. I alongwith Rajinder got down from the Bus near Bhuna crossing Tohana and went to school. At 10.45 AM when we were going to village after noting down the date sheet and reached near Bhuna Road Tohana and stood near the shop of Hair Dresser Subhash and there one Mahabir Singh son of Ram Kumar came and stood near us, who is the brother of Rajinder. Meanwhile Suresh Checker of Atul Coach and Atul son of Sant Lal Bishnoi resident of Court Road, Tohana alongwith other three persons out of which two person were of wheatish colour and one was of dusty colour and I do not know their names. I can recognize them if they come in front of me. When they saw us they started abusing us and said that you have not taken the tickets in the bus and we will teach you a lesson. Immediately after this Rajinder said to these person why are you getting angry, we have not harmed you. Immediately after this these persons caught hold of Rajinder and laid him on the road and started giving fist and leg blows. Atul gave a lalkara that today he be finished. Meanwhile all these persons started beating Rajinder and throwing him time and again on the road. I alongwith Mahabir tried to rescue Rajinder from these five persons. Then Suresh gave a fist blow on my left eye and Atul give me a leg blow on chest and I fell down. After this I and Mahabir made a noise of Bachao Bhacho and immediately after this all of them ran away from the spot. I alongwith Mahabir took Rajinder to a Govt. Hospital by putting him in a Rickshaw where the doctor declared Rajinder dead. Suresh, Atul and three other persons have given blows to Rajinder because of which Rajinder had died. Action be taken against them."
2. The petitioners filed an application under Section 12 of the Act before the Duty Magistrate who dismissed the same on 26.4.2003 holding that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of bail because the charges against them were serious and they were on the verge of attaining majority on the date of commission of crime i.e. 29.3.2003. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 52 of the Act before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad and their appeal was also dismissed. The operative part of the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge reads as under :-
"I have taken into consideration the above arguments and have gone through
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
