Crl.Rev.No.1079 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.1079 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.4.2010 Mannu @ Sukh Deva ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This revision petition has been filed challenging order dated 15.2.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, whereby order dated 12.1.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rewari, declining bail to the petitioner, was upheld. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was a juvenile and as per the provisions of Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act'), the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail. The Courts below had erred in declining bail to the petitioner. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Sham Lal and another vs. State of Haryana 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 368; Sonu Nagar vs. U.T.Chandigarh 2006 (1) RCR (Criminal) 783; Crl.Rev.No.1079 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Parveen @ Fattey vs. State of Haryana 2006(1) RCR (Criminal) 8; and Sandeep (In J.C.) vs. State NCT of Delhi 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 146. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. Section 12 of the Act reads as under:- “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 foce, 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 relase would defeat the ends of justice. (2)When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the Crl.Rev.No.1079 of 2010 (O&M) 3 prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub- section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.” There is no dispute that ordinarily a juvenile is entitled to be released on bail irrespective of the offence alleged to have been committed by him. However, in case the release is likely to bring the juvenile in association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or if his release would defeat the ends of justice, he can be denied the bail. In the present case, the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is of gang rape. The petitioner also faced a criminal trial in FIR No.69 dated 13.5.2009 under Sections 323/ 324/ 506 IPC. He is also facing a criminal trial in FIR No. 223 dated 15.8.2009 under Sections 324/ 506/34 IPC. Rajesh, brother of the petitioner, is facing a criminal trial in FIR No.31 dated 23.1.2009 under Sections 147/ 148/ 323/ 324/ 341/ 506 IPC and involved in various other cases. Brother of the petitioner, Kamal, is also involved in a murder case. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that Crl.Rev.No.1079 of 2010 (O&M) 4 in case the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, he is likely to come in association with criminals. In the present case, the family members of the petitioner are also involved in criminal activities. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as these are based on different facts. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. SABINA) JUDGE April 26, 2010 anita