Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harwinderjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.10521 of 2021
Date of Decision: 29.04.2021
Harwinderjit Singh
…..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
…..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Sangram S. Saron, Advocate,
for the petitioner
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
SUDIP AHLUWALIA J.
The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail on behalf of
the petitioner in case FIR No.21 dated 22nd March, 2020, registered
under Sections 302, 397 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at
Police Station Sadar Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar, after such
bail was declined by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar on
29.01.2021 vide his impugned order Annexure P-6.
[2] Background of the matter is that 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
1 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:06:42 :::
CRM-M No.10521 of 2021 -2-
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 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
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 after 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 25.10.2002. As such he was less
than 17½ 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
2 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:06:43 :::
CRM-M No.10521 of 2021 -3-
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 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 prayer for bail was nevertheless
rejected by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, after he was ordered to
be sent up for trial along with co-accused Hardeep Singh @ Dipi
3 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:06:43 :::
CRM-M No.10521 of 2021 -4-
before the Children’s Court/ Court of Sessions vide the order
passed by the Ld. Principle Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board,
SBS Nagar on 18.12.2020 which is Annexure R-1 to the reply filed
on behalf of the State.
[5] It is verified from the impugned order that the
Petitioner’s prayer for bail was rejected by the Ld. Court below
without considering the aspect as to whether he was entitled to be
covered by the beneficial provisions of Section 12 of the JJ Act
already reproduced above. On the other hand, the complete reasons
for which the Petitioner was denied bail by the Ld. Addl. Sessions
Judge are set out below –
“10. Co-accused Jagdeep Singh @ Babbu Bajwa and
Harsh, who have been nominated in aforesaid FIRs No.
21 & 47 have also confessed various incidents of
snatching/ robbery. During investigation of present
case, it has been revealed that the applicant
Harwinderjit Singh @ Hunny, Jagdeep Singh @ Babbu
Bajwa and Harsh have constituted a gang. They have
committed robbery by inflicting injuries to Jasvir Singh,
deceased in the present case. According to post mortem
report of deceased Jasvir Singh, injuries on his person
have been reported to be incised wounds.
11. There are serious allegations against the
applicant. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence
and nature of the crime, without commenting on merit
4 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:06:43 :::
CRM-M No.10521 of 2021 -5-
of the case, applicant is not entitled to bail.
Accordingly, present bail application stands dismissed.
Bail application file be attached with the main file,
pending for 02.02.2021.”
[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
5 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:06:43 :::
CRM-M No.10521 of 2021 -6-
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 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
6 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:06:43 :::
CRM-M No.10521 of 2021 -7-
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)
[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] As already noted, the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge in his
impugned order has not at all considered entitlement of the
Petitioner for bail in terms of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice
7 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:06:43 :::
CRM-M No.10521 of 2021 -8-
Act, which could not have been overlooked even in the situation
that he was sent up to face trial by the JJB in the Children’s Court.
In any case, having been a juvenile on the relevant date, he was
entitled to be dealt with under Section 12 for which the grounds for
denying bail to him could be within the proviso to Section 12(1) of
the JJ Act as reproduced above. The first and foremost reason for
refusing such bail to a juvenile/ child in conflict with law is the
possibility of his coming into contact of 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
8 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:06:43 :::
CRM-M No.10521 of 2021 -9-
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, clearly 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 defeat the ends of justice.
[10] For the aforesaid reasons, the Petitioner at this stage 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.
9 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:06:43 :::
CRM-M No.10521 of 2021 -10-
[11] Needless to add, nothing in this judgment shall be
construed as an expression on the merits of the case as a whole.
[12] Petition stands disposed off.
29.04.2021 (SUDIP AHLUWALIA)
Satyawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
10 of 10
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 15:06:43 :::
Comments