IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.968 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.7.2011 Deepak Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.A.P.S.Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.3.2011 vide which the prayer of the petitioner for bail on the ground that he is a juvenile and is thus entitled to the benefit of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been declined. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner along with number of persons came to the shop of the complainant and attacked his brother causing him grievous and serious injuries as a result of which he died. Initially the case was registered under Section 307 IPC but after his death it was converted under Section 302 IPC. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he was armed with Kirpan and gave two blows on the back side of the head of the brother of the complainant. Crl.Rev.No.968 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 12 of the Act to contend that the impugned order does not met the requirements thereof and in fact the petitioner necessarily had to be released on bail unless he falls within the parameters of the exceptions detailed in the said section. Reliance has been placed on Manmohan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004(2)RCR (Criminal) 89 and Sham Lal and anr. v. State of Haryana, 2004(4)RCR (Criminal) 368. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order as also the relevant provisions of the Act, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity committed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge even though he has been economical in his language. If the facts of the case are to be evaluated then it is apparent that the petitioner along with other co-accused had come to the shop of the complainant and caused fatal injuries to his brother without any provocation. This reveals that he is in the company of people who are already exposed to unwarranted activities. Releasing the petitioner on bail is likely to expose him to such company once again. That apart, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner has since been done to death by the complainant. In this eventuality there is a possibility of a grave physical danger to the petitioner as well, as this fact indicates that there is ongoing rivalry between the parties. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 27.7.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) dss JUDGE