Crl. Misc. No. 9230-M of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 9230-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.7.2008 Sunil and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present:- Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 for grant of bail in case FIR No.222 dated 25.9.2007 registered under Sections 398/401 IPC and Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act, at Police Station Sadar, Panipat. The allegations against the petitioners are that on 25.9.2007, the petitioners along with co-accused looted police party while being armed with iron rods and pistols. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners are admittedly juvenile, which fact is not controverted by the counsel for the State and therefore in view of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' only), petitioners are entitled to bail. Section 12 of the Act is reproduced as under for ready reference:- “Section 12 : Bail for Juvenile (1) when any person Crl. Misc. No. 9230-M of 2008 2 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, 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.” Bare reading of the above provision provides that juvenile person has to be released on bail mandatorily with or without surety but for three exceptions namely he shall not be so released if there appears reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychologial danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded that none of the petitioners is involved in any other crime. However, it was further argued that the offence is heinous. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that merely the offence is heinous, bail cannot be denied in view of decisions in Baljinder alias Bantu versus U.T., Chandigarh 2005(1) RCR (Crl.) 733, Tarsem versus State of Haryana 2006(3) RCR (Crl) 945 and Amit versus State of Haryana 2007(3) RCR (Crl) 203. After hearing the counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I am of the view that petitioners are entitled to bail as heinous crime is no ground to deny the bail to a juvenile who is entitled to bail under Section 12 of the Act. It is proved on record that till today petitioners are not involved in any other case. Crl. Misc. No. 9230-M of 2008 3 In view of the above, present petition is allowed and it is directed that petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. July 17 , 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) rekha Judge