Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Neeraj – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M No. 22942 of 2022, CRR No. 1261 of 2020
Decided On : 16-08-2023
Bail - Juvenile - IPC, Cr.P.C., POCSO Act - 302, 148, 149, 186, 323, 307, 353, 404, 25 - The court allowed the bail petitions of the juvenile 'S' and petitioner Neeraj, who were involved in a case arising out of the same FIR. The court considered the special provisions under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 for releasing a child on bail and emphasized that bail to a juvenile is to be considered under the parameters provided under Section 12 of the Act, even if the juvenile is to be tried as an adult. The court also highlighted the need to consider the merits of the case and not just the disentitling conditions mentioned in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act. The court referred to a similar issue considered by the Allahabad High Court and emphasized that the perception that merits of the case are absolutely irrelevant to a juvenile's bail plea under the Act would not be in conformity with the law. The court analyzed the allegations and the trial process, and based on the facts and circumstances, granted bail to both the juvenile 'S' and petitioner Neeraj.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a murder of two police officials, and the petitions were filed by the juvenile 'S' and petitioner Neeraj arising out of the same FIR. The juvenile 'S' was denied bail by the Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional Sessions Judge, while petitioner Neeraj was seeking bail based on his arrest and the trial process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of bail to the juvenile 'S' was not justified, and the observations made by the lower courts were based on conjectures and surmises. The court also noted that the case was dependent on circumstantial evidence and that the trial may take time to conclude. The court granted bail to the juvenile 'S' based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the court allowed bail for petitioner Neeraj, considering the role attributed to him and the duration of his custody.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of bail to the juvenile 'S' and petitioner Neeraj, based on the allegations and the trial process. The court analyzed the special provisions under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 for releasing a child on bail and emphasized the need to consider the merits of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail to a juvenile is to be considered under the parameters provided under Section 12 of the Act, even if the juvenile is to be tried as an adult. The court also highlighted the need to consider the merits of the case and not just the disentitling conditions mentioned in the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act. The court referred to a similar issue considered by the Allahabad High Court and emphasized that the perception that merits of the case are absolutely irrelevant to a juvenile's bail plea under the Act would not be in conformity with the law.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the juvenile 'S' and petitioner Neeraj based on the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting anything further on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. This order shall dispose of two petitions titled above, as both of them have arisen out of the same FIR No. 182 dated 30.06.2020 registered at Police Station Barauda, District Sonipat under Section 302, 148, 149, 186, 323, 307, 353 and 404 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
2. CRM-M-22942-2022 is filed by petitioner Neeraj under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with prayer for grant of regular bail; whereas in CRR-1261-2020 filed by juvenile S, challenge has been given to the order dated 05.10.2020 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, dismissing the appeal against order dated 08.09.2020 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Sonipat, declining the bail to the said minor petitioner ‘S’ (name withheld).
FIR Version:
3. As emerge on perusal of paper book, on 30.06.2020, information was received at Police Station Barauda, District Sonipat that two police officials in uniform were lying dead at Jind-Gohana Road near Hariyali Park of Village Butana and motorcycle bearing No. HR-10-Y-1465 was parked near them. On getting this information through ASI Sanjay, SHO Police Station Barauda reached the spot and found the deceased police officials to be Constable Ravinder No. 564 and SPO Kaptan No. 213, who had gone on night duty on the Government Vehicle No. HR-10-Y-1465. Their dead bodies were lying on the side of the road, drenched in blood and they had been killed by causing injuries with sharp-edged weapon. On the statement of ASI Sanjay, FIR was registered.
Police Investigation:
4. During investigation, the physical evidence was collected from the spot. Postmortem examination of the two deceased was got conducted. Deceased Kaptan was found to have suffered 5 sharp cut injuries, whereas deceased Ravinder was found to have suffered 4 injuries. During postmortem examination of the deceased Ravinder, letters ‘HR-56B-8192’ were found to be written in blue ink on his palm. Said number was found to be of a car make i-10 grand and its registered owner as Gurjit son of Roshan Lal. On joining the investigation by father of Gurjit, it was found that said car had already been sold to Sandeep son of Jogender. Said Sandeep was apprehended along with the car on 1.7.2020.
5. On interrogation, said Sandeep disclosed that on 29.06.2020, his friends Amit @ Sunara, Vikas and one other boy (later on identified as petitioner Neeraj), who was the friend of Amit, had met him. He was told by Amit and his friend that they were having relations with girls Asha and ‘S’ (petitioner) and that they were going to meet them. All of them planned to visit village Butana. After reaching in front of Hariyali Beej Store in Village Butana at about 12 in the night, they consumed liquor and then he (Sandeep) and Amit went to the village to bring the two girls. After arrival of two girls, Amit along with petitioner ‘S’ occupied the car, whereas Asha and Amit’s friend (Neeraj) were sitting on another corner. It was further disclosed by him that Amit and petitioner ‘S’ were indulging in intercourse, when at about 2-2.30 A.M. a police motorcycle came and started making enquiries from them. As per Sandeep, Asha and ‘S’ (petitioner) disclosed that police officials knew them being posted in the police post of their village and asked to kill them to avoid any scenario in the village and then Amit took out a knife, whereas he (Sandeep), petitioner ‘S’ and Asha thrashed the police officials and that it is Amit, who stabbed repeatedly at the two police officials namely, Ravinder and Kaptan, due to which they died. Said Sandeep also got recovered the clothes worn by him at the time of occurrence.
6. Further prosecution case is that on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Sandeep, the police party proceeded to arrest Amit and Vikas, who when chased caused knife injuries to the police officials. Though Vikas succeeded in fleeing away, but Amit @ Sunara was killed in police encounter having suffered bullet injuries. Regarding this incident, FIR No
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the special provisions under Section 12 of the Act, 2015 for releasing a child on bail and the emphasis on considering the mer....
Bail is the rule and not jail for juveniles under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and can only be denied in specific circumstances as mentioned in the Act, considering the juvenile's age, cus....
Rejection of bail for juveniles must be based on proven risk factors, not just the seriousness of the charge; rehabilitation is prioritized under juvenile law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of bail for juveniles in conflict with the law, the requirement for reasonable grounds to deny bail, and the emphasis on the b....
Bail for juveniles under the Juvenile Justice Act is mandatory unless there are justifiable grounds for denial.
Pending preliminary assessment, possibility of tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses are valid reasons for dismissing a bail application, and the custody period and lack of progress in t....
The court emphasized that the gravity of the offence alone does not justify denying bail to juveniles; potential dangers to society and the juvenile's welfare must be considered.
Offence of Murder - Bail of juvenile - Not granted - Revisionist disentitled to bail under all three exceptions to rule, envisaged under proviso to Section 12(1) of Act of 2015.
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
