IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.1975 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.8.2011 Manoj Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Rajinder Sorout, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is a petition in which the petitioner prays that benefit of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 be given to him as he is a juvenile. The allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused are that when a police party constituted of the complainant and ASI Om Parkash were travelling in a bus while escorting one Bachhu Singh, an undertrial, to police station Kosi Kalan from Bhondsi Jail upon reaching Dabchik Tourist Complex, 5/6 boys came in the bus from the front door and tried to free Bachhu Singh from the police guard. They were armed with firearms which were used upon the police. ASI Om Parkash was shot in the belly. The police team struggled to retain control of the undertrial but the accused persons succeeded and ran away with the undertrial and in the process they Crl.Rev.No.1975 of 2011 (O&M) -2- took away a carbine and magazine containing 20 rounds which were on the person of the police. They thereafter ran away towards Uttar Pradesh. The prayer for bail has been declined to the petitioner by the District Magistrate and the Addl. Sessions Judge. It is now contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that accusation against the petitioner is false and he was not present at the spot. It has also been contended that the statement of the complainant has since been recorded and the recovery which has been effected from the petitioner is only that of an iron rod even though it was stated in the complaint that all the persons were armed with firearms. It has further been stated that even as per the statement, no injury was caused by the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the present prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. Even though the grant of bail to a juvenile is to be accepted as a norm, yet the Court is not precluded from taking into consideration the facts and thereupon record its reasons to deny such concession to a juvenile especially if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the release of such a juvenile on bail 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. In the opinion of this Court, the involvement of the Crl.Rev.No.1975 of 2011 (O&M) -3- petitioner in the occurrence in which the undertrial was freed in broad day light from a police party and in which process serious injuries were caused to one Assistant Sub-Inspector and also noticing the fact that the petitioner himself is a relation of Bachhu Singh who was freed and further noticing that the consummate ease for which the entire operation was carried out by the petitioner along with his accomplices suggests that the petitioner is already in the company of hardened criminals and, therefore, his enlarging on bail would obviously bring him into deeper association with such criminals and expose him to the dangers which are specifically spelled out in Section 12 of the Act. At this stage, when only the statement of the complainant has been recorded, it would be futile to comment upon the veracity of the same, more so when in an attack of this kind it would not be conceivable for any person to recall with precision the role and identity of attackers in the melee and confusion which would have ensued upon such an attack. For the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is held to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 30.8.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss