Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 22 October, 2009
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Criminal Revision No. 2165 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 2165 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.10.2009
Kuldeep Kumar
.. Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. R. K. Handa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail to the petitioner, who was juvenile at the time of commission of alleged offence, was rejected.
Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner has been challaned in FIR No. 325 dated 17.9.2007, registered under Sections 147/149/323/452/302 IPC, Police Station Farooq Nagar, Sector 5, Gurgaon for the alleged murder of Ravi. Though initially challan was presented against the petitioner along with other accused, however, subsequently vide order dated 24.4.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, the petitioner was declared to be a juvenile, being less than 18 years of age on the date of alleged occurrence, i.e., 17.9.2007. Thereafter, the proceedings against the petitioner are being held before the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner applied for grant of bail after he was declared a juvenile, but the same was rejected by the Presiding Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Gurgaon vide order dated 19.5.2009. The order was upheld in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 4.6.2009. It is at this stage that the petitioner is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the clear mandate under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, `the Act'), the petitioner is languishing in jail since 2.2.2008. He has not even been named in the FIR. Four persons have been specifically named in the Criminal Revision No. 2165 of 2009 [2] FIR, who had caused fatal injuries to the deceased. He is a brilliant student, who even after being arrested, is regularly continuing his studies. His parents are agriculturist. The finding recorded by the learned court below that there is likelihood that the petitioner will be associated with other criminals if released on bail is totally baseless and without there being any material on record. Relying upon Amit v. State of Haryana, 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 203 (P&H), it was submitted that rejection of prayer for bail of the petitioner deserves to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that considering the seriousness of allegations against the petitioner, he does not deserve the concession of bail. In case the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of his coming in contact with other criminals.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gopinath Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal, 1984(1) RCR (Criminal) 444, considering the prayer for bail by a juvenile, who was an accused for offence committed under Section 302 IPC, opined as under:
"It clearly transpires from a combined reading of the sections hereinbefore extracted that where a Juvenile delinquent is arrested, he/she has to be produced before a Juvenile Court and if no Juvenile Court is established for the area amongst others, the Court of Session will have powers of a Juvenile court. Such a Juvenile delinquent ordinarily has to be released on bail irrespective of the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed unless it is shown that there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him under the influence of any criminal or expose him to moral danger or defeat the ends of justice."
This Court in Ramesh alias Meshu v. State of Haryana, 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 65 while considering the prayer for bail by a juvenile accused for offence under Sections 376, 452 and 325 IPC opined as under:
"I have heard the argument of the counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. In my opinion, rejection of bail application of the petitioner by the courts below only on the ground that it will defeat the ends of justice, is wholly erroneous. The prosecution has not produced any material or evidence that release of the petitioner will defeat the ends of justice. The granting of bail to a juvenile is must notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Revision No. 2165 of 2009 [3] Criminal Procedure or in any other law for the time being in force. However, bail can only be declined in exceptional circumstances where it appears to the court that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. In the instant case, there is no reasonable apprehension that the release of the petitioner will bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. The only exceptional reason given by both the courts below is that release of the petitioner will defeat the ends of justice. This conclusion also, in my opinion, is not based upon material or any reasonable grounds."
In Atul Kumar and another v. State of Haryana, 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 404, where the juvenile therein was accused for offences under Sections 302/323/147/149 IPC, this Court opined as under:
"I am further of the view that there has to be some evidence on record showing that after the release on bail, the petitioners are likely to come in association with any known criminal or their release on bail would expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or that their release would defeat the ends of justice. In a given case if the parents of the petitioners are also criminals either ex-convicts or members of a gang, it may be possible for the court to refuse bail. Another example could be whether the petitioners have repeated the crime showing lapse on the part of the parents after their release while on bail, then the case may be covered by the exceptions carved out under Section 12 of the Act. However, in a case like the one in hand, where no material has been placed on record to show that the release of the juvenile in conflict with law would defeat the ends of justice or any other exception, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of bail merely on the basis of conjectures or opinion formed by the prosecution or the court. Reliance in this regard could be placed on the judgments in the case of Sahabuddin @ Shabboo's case (supra) and Sanjeev Kumar's case (supra)."
In the present case, Presiding Member, Juvenile justice Board, Gurgaon formed an opinion that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to come in contact with known criminals. Similar opinion was formed by the Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against Criminal Revision No. 2165 of 2009 [4] the order of Presiding Member, Juvenile Justice Board rejecting his bail application. However, a perusal of the impugned orders shows that no material as such was produced by the prosecution to substantiate this claim and to bring the case of the petitioner within the exceptions carved out for rejection of the bail application of a juvenile who otherwise is to be released on bail as a matter of right. There is nothing on record to suggest that the parents of the petitioner have any criminal background. Further, it was also pointed out that even during custody, the petitioner had been pursuing his study.
Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves the concession of bail. Accordingly, it is directed that pending trial, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Presiding Member, Juvenile Justice Board/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon.
The petition is disposed of.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 22.10.2009 mk