IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.1888 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.8.2011 Asse Ram @ Asse ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Surender Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The instant petition has been filed for release of the petitioner on bail on the ground that he is a juvenile. According to the FIR and the subsequent statement which has been recorded by Smt. Santosh, wife of the injured in the incident, the role of the petitioner has surfaced clearly. He along with Satpal and Sandeep along with two other boys, one of them being the petitioner entered the house after breaking the door. Satpal is said to have enquired from Santosh about the whereabouts of Arjun and his sister and when he got the answer in the negative, Satpal dragged her to another room and fired four shots upon her with his revolver, out of out of which one shot hit on her right cheek, two on her right hand and one on the left thigh. In the FIR no clear role has been attributed to the petitioner. However, in the statement recorded subsequently the Crl.Rev.No.1888 of 2011 (O&M) -2- injured/complainant Manjit stated that Satpal, Sandeep and Asse Ram (petitioner) dragged his mother Smt. Santosh to another room and Satpal fired four shots at her. Thereafter, Satpal fired shots at Manjeet with an intention to kill him and he hit him on the left side of his chest. On hearing the commotion, neighbours collected and the accused persons absconded. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is entitled to the concession of bail on the ground that he is a juvenile and that no active role has been attributed to him, and further that he was merely present at the spot. He has referred to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 to substantiate his claim for being released on bail :- “12. Bail of juvenile.-- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is 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 care of any fit institution or fit person but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release 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.” Crl.Rev.No.1888 of 2011 (O&M) -3- A perusal of the section leaves no room for doubt that a juvenile is ordinarily entitled to be released on bail unless there appear reasonable grounds for believing that “the release 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.” The Court has examined the material which reveals that at the heart of the controversy is the animosity simmering between the two families on account of one of the sons of the complainant Arjun having enticed away the daughter of Samunder Singh whose son Satpal had entered the premises of the complainant along with the petitioner and other co-accused. The court is convinced that releasing the petitioner on bail is likely to expose him to dangers of the factionalism borne out from the perceived injury to the honour of the group that he belongs to, which can possibly invite retribution exposing the petitioner to dangers of conflict and life as also endangering not only his physical but also imperiling psychological danger at this tender age. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the trial of the case be expedited. There is no ground to comment upon this aspect of the matter in the absence of any material which would show that there has been prolonged delay. It is always expected of the courts to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible without causing any undue delay. Dismissed. 24.8.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) dss JUDGE