Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardeep Singh @ Dipi vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2021CRR-1296-2020 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRR-1296-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.04.2021
****
Hardeep Singh @ Dipi
….. Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
….. Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. B.K.Mehta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Walia, A.A.G., Punjab
for the respondent-State.
SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J
In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the
impugned orders dated 09.07.2020 passed by the Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, SBS Nagar vide which bail application moved by
petitioner was dismissed in case FIR No. 21 dated 22.03.2020 under
Sections 302 & 397 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Nawanshahr,
and the judgment dated 31.07.2020 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, SBS
Nagar in a revision petition while upholding the order passed by the
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, SBS Nagar, and further to
release the petitioner on bail in the aforesaid FIR.
[2] Background of the matter is that the FIR No. 21, dated
22.03.2020 was registered under Sections 304-A, 279 IPC at PS, Sadar
Nawanshahr against unknown persons on the statement of one Darbara
Singh son of Dhanna Singh, resident of Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.
Later on, Jagdeep Singh @ Babbu Bajwa and Harsh were arrested in case
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:00:51 :::
CRR-1296-2020 (O&M) -2-
FIR No. 47, dated 11.05.2020, under Sections 302/397 IPC, PS Rahon and
in the said FIR, Jagdeep Singh @ Babbu Bajwa and Harsh suffered
confessional statements admitting that they alongwith Harwinder Singh and
Hardeep Singh @ Dipi have constituted a gang. They used to commit
robbery by inflicting injuries. In the same way, they have also committed
robbery by inflicting injuries on one Jasvir Singh. On the basis of the said
disclosure statements, applicant and others were nominated in FIR No. 21,
dated 22.03.2020, PS, Sadar Nawanshahr, and offences under Sections
302/397/201 IPC were added by deleting Sections 279/304-A IPC.
[3] Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that his client was a
juvenile on the date of the alleged occurrence (21.03.2020). His date of birth
happens to be 04.02.2004. As such he was just over 16 years of age on the
relevant date. He, therefore, ought to have been dealt with under Section 12
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
According to which –
‘Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in
conflict with law – (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(2 of 1974) 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 case of any fit person :
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:00:51 :::
CRR-1296-2020 (O&M) -3-
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.’
[4] The Petitioner was arrested two months after the date of
occurrence on 25.05.2020. His prayers for bail were nevertheless rejected by
both the JJB and Addl. Sessions Judge vide the impugned orders.
[5] In rejecting the Petitioner’s prayer, the Ld. Addl. Sessions
Judge was of the opinion that the case fell under the proviso to Section 12
(1) of the JJ Act which deals with denial of bail to a juvenile/ child in
conflict with law. The relevant reasons for refusing bail to the Petitioner
have been recorded in paras 17 & 18 of its impugned judgment which are
set out as below –
’17. There is sufficient material on record to suggest that there
is reasonable ground to believe that release of petitioner is
likely to bring him into association with known criminals.
Moreover, the petitioner is accused of a heinous crime like
murder, he would be a source of curiosity and an object of
social ridicule and comment. Therefore, his psychology is
bound to be adversely affected. There is danger to physical,
mental and psychological safety of the juvenile delinquent. In
these circumstances, it is better to keep the petitioner in the
safe confine of a protection home. Most importantly, if those
who allegedly commit a heinous crime like murder were
granted bail, then conscience of the society would be shocked.
A crime is an act against the society. Therefore, the
conscience, the sensitivity of the society would have to be kept
in mind. Thus, the release of the petitioner would defect the
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:00:51 :::
CRR-1296-2020 (O&M) -4-
ends of justice.
18. In the instant case, taking into consideration the overall
facts and circumstances of the case, the serious allegations
levelled against the petitioner and the observations made by
learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, SBS
Nagar, I am of the considered opinion if the petitioner is
released on bail, then it would not serve the ends of justice,
hence, I do not find any merit in the instant revision, which in
the considered view of this Court deserves to be dismissed.’
[6] Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner from his side has placed reliance
upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in A.C. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi,
Bail Application No. 657 of 2019 rendered on 28.03.2019, in which it was
observed inter alia –
“11. But the Additional Public Prosecutor fairly conceded
that there is no provision in JJ Act, 2015 requiring a departure
to be made from the general provision contained in Section 12
quoted above in the matter of release on bail of a CCL who has
been referred to be tried as an adult. To put it simply, the
above referred provision of Section 12 governs the field for all
children in conflict with law, irrespective of the age bracket to
which they belong, and notwithstanding the fact as to whether
the case against them is being inquired into by the JJB or the
Children’s Court to which it may have been referred under
Section 19(3).
12. The impugned order of the Children’s Court, in above
view, fails to pass the muster of Section 12 and, cannot be
upheld. The relevant observations of the Children’s court in
denying release on bail to the petitioner have been extracted
above in extenso. Having regard to the provision contained in
the main clause of sub-Section (1) of Section 12, bail is the
general rule. The circumstances in which denial, by way of an
exception, is to be adopted, are indicated in the proviso to the
said sub-section. Pertinent to note here that the circumstances
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:00:51 :::
CRR-1296-2020 (O&M) -5-
in which such person (CCL) is not to be released on bail
include the existence of reasonable ground for believing that :
(i) the release is likely to bring the CCL into
association with any known criminal;
(ii) it would defeat the ends of justice.”
[7] Relying on the above decision, another Bench of the Delhi
High Court in CCL ‘A’ Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Application No.
2510 of 2020 decided on 19.10.2020, had observed inter alia :
“(i) xx xx xx xx
(ii) Section 439 Cr.P.C. has no application to the issue of
grant or denial of bail to a juvenile since, again, a juvenile is
to be dealt with by a special statute, namely the JJ Act, which
contains a specific provision for bail, namely section 12 of the
JJ Act;
(iii) If a juvenile has been denied bail by the JJB and/or the
Children’s Court, it is available for the juvenile to file an
application before the High Court under section 12 of the JJ
Act seeking bail; and it is not necessary that the bail plea be
styled as an appeal under section 101(2) of the JJ Act. The
words “…..or otherwise” appearing in 8(2) are wide enough to
include any bail proceeding filed before the High Court,
whether directly or after having been denied relief by the JJB
and/or the Children’s Court; and the High Court is empowered
to entertain a bail plea as a proceeding of first instance,
without having to treat it as an appellate or revisional
proceeding;
(iv) A bail plea filed on behalf of a juvenile must always and
only be considered on the criteria and parameters set-out in
section 12 of the JJ Act, and the general principles for grant of
denial of bail under section 437 or section 439 Cr.P.C. have no
application in such a case.”
(Emphasis added)
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:00:51 :::
CRR-1296-2020 (O&M) -6-
[8] Consequently, the concerned child in conflict with law was
ordered to be released on bail by the Court, which observed as under :-
“51. Most importantly, the mandate of section 12 cannot be
diluted, which says that a CCL-A shall be released on bail,
with or without surety, or placed under the supervision of
probation officer or under the case of any fit person; and
accordingly, there must be good reason not to do so and such
reason must relate back to the welfare of CCL-A. In the present
case this court does not find any such reasons.”
[9] In the present case, however, the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge in
his impugned order while recognizing the applicability of Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice Act for a child in conflict with law was, however, of the
opinion that there is reasonable ground to believe that his release is likely to
bring him into association with known criminals, and that the Petitioner
being accused of a heinous crime like murder, he would be a source of
curiosity and an object of social ridicule and comment, on account of which
his psychology is bound to be adversely affected. The Ld. Court below
further went on to observe that there is danger to the physical, mental and
psychological safety of the Petitioner, on account of which it is better to
keep him in the safe confines of a Protection Home, and that if those who
allegedly commit a heinous crime like murder were granted bail, then
conscience of the society will be shocked, since a crime being an act against
the society, the conscience, and the sensitivity of the society would have to
be kept in mind, on account of which his release would defeat the ends of
justice.
[10] In the opinion of this Court, however, the above reasonings of
the Ld. Court below in denying bail to the Petitioner are not in consonance
with the basic objective behind the special legislation contained in Section
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:00:51 :::
CRR-1296-2020 (O&M) -7-
12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, more particularly at this stage when by
now he has already remained in confinement in the Protection Home for
almost a year following his arrest on 25.05.2020.
[11] The first and foremost reason for denying bail to a juvenile/
child in conflict with law is the possibility of his coming into contact, or his
being brought into association with any known criminal or otherwise his
exposure to moral, physical or psychological danger, or where his release
would defeat the ends of justice. In the opinion of this Court, neither of
these conditions appear to be attracted qua the petitioner at this stage. He is
alleged to have become a member of a gang along with co-accused Jagdeep
Singh @ Babbu Bajwa and Harsh, who had both crossed the age of majority
at the relevant time. But as intimated by Ld. Counsel for the State, on
instructions, those two adults are already in custody, and so there is little
chance of the Petitioner being exposed to their association if released on
bail. He has by now remained in detention for almost an year. It can
therefore not be said that at this stage he is likely to be exposed to any
moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends
of justice when the alleged offence was committed more than one year ago,
and, as seen from the material collected by the Investigating Authorities
which essentially is the disclosure statements of co-accused Jagdeep Singh
@ Babbu Bajwa and Harsh, the fatal injuries on the deceased were inflicted
by those very accused persons, and not by the present Petitioner himself. As
such, extending the beneficial effect of Section 12 of the JJ Act to the
Petitioner who has already remained in detention for so long would not
appear to defeat the ends of justice.
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:00:51 :::
CRR-1296-2020 (O&M) -8-
[12] Similarly, the fact that the Petitioner is accused of involvement
in the heinous crime of murder, in association with the other co-accused
persons who were the actual assailants of the deceased and not juveniles
themselves, would also not be of much consequence since there is nothing
in Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act to indicate that entitlement to its
beneficial provisions for a juvenile to be curtailed in any manner simply
because the offence for which he is charged happens to be a ‘henious’ one,
and there can be no gain saying that ends of justice would be defeated if
such entitlement is disregarded simply because of the applicability of any
henious offences in a given case when the legislation does not contemplate
that such offences are to be treated at any different pedestal Section 12(1) of
the Juvenile Justice Act.
[13] For the aforesaid reasons, at this stage the Petitioner is permitted to
be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Ld. trial Court subject, however,
to the condition that while on such bail, he shall remain under supervision
of the Legal-cum-Probation Officer, District Child Protection Unit, SBS
Nagar Nawanshahr, who shall maintain general oversight and supervision
over him, including by visiting or calling him from time to time as may be
deemed necessary, to ensure that he does not fall into any undesirable
company and is not exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger;
or that his release, in any manner, defeats the ends of justice.
[14] Needless to add, nothing in this judgment shall be construed as
an expression on the merits of the case as a whole.
[15] Petition stands disposed off.
29.04.2021 (SUDIPAHLUWALIA)
Satyawan JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
2. Whether reportable: Yes
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:00:51 :::
Comments