Criminal Revision No. 688 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 688 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 23, 2010 Farukh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Roopak Bansal,Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Subhra Singh,Deputy Advocate General,Haryana ** Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging order passed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Nuh dated 25.2.2010 whereby the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board dated 20.2.2010 declining bail to the petitioner was upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was liable to be released on bail. Petitioner was a juvenile and was in custody for the last 11 months. There was no material to suggest that if the petitioner was released on bail, he would come in association with criminals. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance Criminal Revision No. 688 of 2010 (O&M) 2 on an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 722 of 2008 decided on 1.7.2008 titled as Vikas Yadav vs. State of Haryana and an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Misc. No.16692 of 2009 decided on 5.9.2009 titled as `Supreet Singh Dilawar vs. State of U.T.Chandigarh. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was also involved in another case under Section 398/401 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ` IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short `the Act'). In the present case, the prosecution case in brief is that on 21.5.2009, complainant was going to Faridabad. At about 10.00 P.M., when he reached near Chor Chabutra Mountain Nuh on his motor cycle, he was stopped by 7/8 persons, who were armed with sticks and one of them was carrying a country made pistol. The hands and feet of the complainant were tied by the said persons and they gave beatings to the complainant. They took away the motor cycle of the complainant bearing No. HR-30-A-2391, one ATM card of the complainant and his mobile phone. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. Petitioner and his co-accused had committed dacoity at pistol point. Recovery of mobile phone was effected from the possession of the petitioner. It also transpired during investigation that an amount of Rs.32,000/- had been withdrawn from the account of the complainant by using his ATM Card. Petitioner is also involved in another case under Sections 398/401 IPC and Section 25 of the Act. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that in case petitioner is released on bail, he will come in association with criminals. I have gone Criminal Revision No. 688 of 2010 (O&M) 3 through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner but the same fail to advance the case of the petitioner as they are based on different facts. In these circumstances, the bail application of the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the Courts below keeping in view the interest of the petitioner. Dismissed. (Sabina) Judge April 23, 2010