Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
Dharambir – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-44484-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 17-03-2023
Bail Cancellation - Juvenile Justice Act - The court found that the addition of a new offense after the grant of bail was not sufficient grounds to cancel the bail granted to the respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to the respondent based on the addition of a new offense under Section 376(2)(N) of IPC after the bail was granted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the addition of the new offense after the grant of bail was not sufficient grounds to cancel the bail granted to the respondent.
Issues: The issue was whether the addition of a new offense after the grant of bail warranted the cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offense under Section 376(2)(N) of IPC was not in the picture at the time of consideration of bail, and therefore, the addition of the offense was not a ground to cancel the bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent.
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) - Prayer in the present petition is for seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.2 in FIR No.0058 dated 31.01.2022, under Section 84 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Sections 363, 366-A of IPC (Sections 328, 376(2)(N) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act added), registered at P.S. Sonipat Sadar vide which respondent No.2 had been granted bail.
2. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that after having been granted bail to respondent No.2 on 10.08.2022, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonipat has framed the charges under Section 376(2)(N) of IPC vide order dated 30.08.2022. He submits that the petitioner was granted bail only for the offence under Sections 363, 366-A of IPC and Section 84 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. He submits that once Section 376 (2)(N) of IPC has been added, the bail granted to respondent No.2 should be cancelled.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the offence under Section 376(2)(N) of IPC did not even exist on the date of granting bail.
4. Learned State counsel has submitted that the offence had been added by the trial Court vide order dated 30th August, 2022 and on the date of granting bail, this offence was not there. He submits that as per the instructions provided, till date, there is no adverse report against the petitioner of having misused the concession of bail granted to him. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the custody of the petitioner will be required, the requisite action would be taken by the State.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the offence under Section 376(2)(N) of IPC was not in the picture at the time of consideration of bail. However, the charges were framed by learned trial Court vide order dated 30.08.2022. The State is at liberty to take the requisite action if so required in accordance with law. Simply because the offence under Section 376(2)(N) of IPC has been added, in the opinion of this Court, is no ground to cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.
The addition of a new offense after the grant of bail may not necessarily warrant the cancellation of the bail granted.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a juvenile, accused of a heinous crime, should be considered for bail under the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, taking i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a juvenile in conflict with the law should be considered for bail based on the criteria and parameters set out in Section 12 of the Juvenile J....
Point of Law : It transpires that there was nothing to show any material or any substance for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him into association with any known crim....
The seriousness of the offence alone cannot justify denying bail to a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act. The grounds for denying bail should be based on specific risks outlined in the Act.
Juveniles are entitled to bail regardless of the offence's gravity unless exceptional circumstances indicate a threat to justice or safety.
The Juvenile Justice Act mandates bail for juveniles unless specific exceptional circumstances exist, emphasizing the welfare of the juvenile.
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
