Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Master Bholu (Imaginary Name) - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation - Respondent
CRA-S-443 of 2021
Decided On : 06-10-2021
Bail Application - Juvenile Justice Act - Section 302 IPC - 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - 12(1) of the Act - 104 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a juvenile, filed a bail application which was dismissed due to pending preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board and the possibility of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. The appellant had undergone custody for three years and eleven months and argued for bail based on this and the lack of progress in the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the pending assessment and the possibility of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses were valid reasons for dismissing the bail application. The court also noted that the issue of whether the appellant should be treated as a child in conflict with the law or an adult was subjudice before the Supreme Court.
Issues: Pending preliminary assessment, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, custody period, lack of progress in trial, and the subjudice issue of the appellant's treatment under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The pending assessment and the possibility of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses were valid reasons for dismissing the bail application. The custody period and lack of progress in the trial were not sufficient grounds for granting bail. The issue of the appellant's treatment under the Juvenile Justice Act was subjudice before the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The appeal for bail was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan, J. - This criminal appeal is filed aggrieved of the order dated 22.3.2021 dismissing the application for bail in FIR No. 250 of 2017, under Section 302 IPC , Police Station Bhondsi, Gurugram with RC-8(S) of 2017 under Section 302 IPC SC-3, Lodhi Road, Delhi.
2. The facts in brief as per the FIR are that on 8.9.2017, father of Prince left Prince and his sister in Ryan International School, Bhondsi at around 8.00 AM. At 8.10 AM, he received a telephonic call from the school staff that Prince was profusely bleeding and taken to Badshahpur Hospital, He had received a cut on his neck. Later, he was told that Prince was taken to Artemis Hospital. Ultimately, the child died due to injury on his neck. During investigation by Haryana Police, one Ashok Kumar was arrested. Later on 22.9.2017, investigation of the case was handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, 'CBI'). The case was re-registered. CBI arrested the appellant and produced him before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter referred to as 'JJB') on 7.11.2017. The appellant was student of 11th standard in the same school. His age was sixteen years and five months on the date of occurrence. JJB made a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, 'the Act') and vide order dated 20.12.2017 held that the juvenile in conflict with law (appellant) is to be tried as an adult under the Act. The order was challenged in appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 21.5.2018. Further criminal revision was preferred. This Court vide order dated 11.10.2018 remanded the matter back to JJB to conduct fresh preliminary assessment. The order of this Court was challenged by the complainant by filing SLP No. 10123 of 2018. Vide order dated 19.11.2018, the Supreme Court directed to maintain status quo in the matter. An application for regular bail was made before the JJB, the same was rejected on 30.10.2018. Appeal against the rejection order was dismissed on 5.11.2018. Criminal Revision No. 3838 of 2018 was filed, same was dismissed on 30.6.2020 by this Court. The SLP preferred against the order of this Court was dismissed on 2.9.2020. The order dated 2.9.2020 was modified by order dated 29.10.2020. The word "tried" was substituted with the word "treated". Fresh bail application was filed on 25.2.2021 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram. The same was dismissed on 22.3.2021. The operational paragraph of the impugned order is reproduced below:
"21. As an inference of the above discussion, this court is having a view that the instant bail application is neither maintainable before this court, nor any other ground has been made out to consider such request of granting bail. Even the inquiry, whether the applicant should be treated by Juvenile Justice Board as juvenile, or whether he should be tried as an adult, has still not been concluded and the same is stayed under the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19.11.2018 in SLP No. 10123 of 2018. In such circumstances, the application for bail filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed. The other authorities cited by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/juvenile in conflict with law are not applicable here as his application for bail have already been considered and dismissed on merits up to the Hon'ble Highest Court of this country and no such change in circumstance has been shown to be made out before this court, making him entitled to concession of bail."
3. Aggrieved of the impugned order, the present appeal is filed.
4. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of orders passed by this Court and the Supreme Court.
5. On 19.11.2018, in the SLP filed challenging the remand by the High Court to JJB to conduct fresh preliminary assessment, the Supreme Court passed the following interim order:
"Status quo, as on today, shall be maintained by the parties in
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
