SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Yash Bhati vs State Of Haryana on 24 July, 2018

CRR-1408-2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRR No.1408 of 2018 (OM)
Date of Decision: July 24, 2018

Yash Bhati
…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana
…Respondent

CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:- Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. P.P. Chahar, DAG Haryana.

********

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

1. This is a criminal revision that has been filed seeking to

challenge the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Faridabad whereby, the appeal of the juvenile-petitioner under the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (for short ‘the JJ Act’)

against the order dated 14.03.2018 passed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Faridabad rejecting bail application of the petitioner, has

been dismissed.

2. In brief, FIR No.1153 dated 07.12.2017 came to be registered

on the statement of Vipin Kumar (father of the prosecutrix), under Section

506 of Indian Penal Code (Section 452 IPC added later on) and Section 4 of

POCSO Act, at Police Station Saran, District Faridabad. During the

pendency of the proceedings under the aforesaid FIR before the trial court,

1 of 4
28-07-2018 00:29:38 :::
CRR-1408-2018 -2-

the petitioner herein has preferred an application seeking grant of regular

bail before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Faridabad

being juvenile, who dismissed the bail application of the petitioner by an

order dated 14.03.2018, primarily on the ground that statement of the

prosecutrix had yet to be recorded and there was reasonable apprehension

that delinquent-juvenile would try to influence the prosecutrix and the

witnesses. Against the said orders, an appeal was filed under the JJ Act, but

the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad too dismissed the application for

bail, by taking note of the apprehension of the prosecution that the

prosecutrix would face mental trauma and that the petitioner herein would

be in every position to influence her being immediate neighbour.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays for

grant of bail to the petitioner, while relying Section 12 of the JJ Act which

clearly specifies that when any person, who is apparently a child and is

alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, shall be

released on bail, with or without surety or placed under the supervision of

the Probation Officer or under the care of any fit person.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent-State submits that the petitioner herein being a juvenile is

involved in a heinous offence, and therefore, the bail application right

rightly been dismissed by both the courts below, while taking into

consideration that the young prosecutrix would be subjected to mental

trauma and intimidation since, the petitioner herein is an immediate

neighbour.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parites and have perused

2 of 4
28-07-2018 00:29:38 :::
CRR-1408-2018 -3-

the orders of both the courts below.

6. Section 12 of the JJ Act is reproduced hereunder:-

“12. (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is
alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence,
is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or
brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on
bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of
a probation officer or under the care of any fit person:
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there
appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is
likely to bring that person into association with any known
criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or
psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat
the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons
for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a
decision.

(2) When such person having been apprehended is not
released on bail under subsection (1) by the officer-in-charge
of the police station, such officer shall cause the person to be
kept only in an observation home in such manner as may be
prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-
section (1) by the Board, it shall make an order sending him
to an observation home or a place of safety, as the case may
be, for such period during the pendency of the inquiry
regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.
(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the
conditions of bail order within seven days of the bail order,
such child shall be produced before the Board for
modification of the conditions of bail.”

3 of 4
28-07-2018 00:29:38 :::
CRR-1408-2018 -4-

7. Section 12 of the JJ Act clearly provides that the bail cannot be

denied to a juvenile except under the certain circumstances provided in the

said section itself. Both the courts below denied bail to the petitioner, while

taking into consideration that he would be in a position to influence the

minor prosecutrix. This court is informed that the minor prosecutrix has

since been examined. Under these circumstances, this court is of the

considered view that no ground is made out, at the present moment, to deny

bail to the juvenile-petitioner. Accordingly, at this stage, without

commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the fact that the

statement of the young prosecutrix has since been recorded, the instant

criminal revision is allowed and the petitioner herein is ordered to be

released on bail on execution of adequate personal bond and surety bond to

the satisfaction of the concerned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

Board/Duty Magistrate. While disposing of this criminal revision, as a

preventive measure, this court thinks it appropriate to direct the Principal

Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, to have an undertaking from the parents

of the petitioner-juvenile that the petitioner-juvenile would not in any

manner try to contact with the minor prosecutrix either directly or

indirectly, or he would not harass or threat or intimidate etc. the minor

prosecutrix in any manner whatsoever. In case, the petitioner-juvenile

would do so, the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this court for

cancellation of his bail.

(JAISHREE THAKUR)
July 24, 2018 JUDGE
vijay saini

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

4 of 4
28-07-2018 00:29:38 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation