CRM No.M 24705 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M 24705 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.3.2010 Mobin Khan (Juvenile) ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr. KK Saini, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Amit Goyal, AAG, Haryana *** Harbans Lal, J.(Oral) This petition has been moved by Mobin Khan (Juvenile) under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.28 dated 16.2.2009 registered under Sections 302, 365, 120-B, 216 of IPC at Police Station Sector-14, Panchkula. The facts in brief are that Vinod Mittal husband of Sushma Mittal (complainant) was running the business of Finance and Property dealing. Co-accused Raju had got financed and purchased a vehicle Maruti Car SX4 on installments. On 14.2.2009, Vinod Mittal alongwith his four years son went to the house of Raju in Santro Car bearing registration No.CH-04A-5012 at 8.30 P.M in order to recover the balance amount from him and when they did not return till 10.15 P.M., Shushma Mittal (complainant) tried to contact her husband on his mobile phone No.97810- 19999. The phone was switched on by someone and the complainant overheard some noises, abuses and cries of her husband and thereafter, the CRM No.M 24705 of 2009 2 phone was disconnected. The complainant thereafter tried to contact her husband through the mobile phone several times, but could not succeed. She alongwith her brother-in-law Mukesh Mittal and one neighbour reached the house of Raju, where he was not present, but his wife Shilpa was there. She disclosed that Vinod Mittal had come to their house at 9.00 P.M., but since Raju was not present, so they left. The complainant reported the matter to the police, as she did not get a satisfactory reply from Shilpa. Thereafter, the son of maternal uncle of Raju was contacted and he disclosed that someone had parked Raju's car in front of his saloon. Report regarding Vinod Mittal and his son having been kidnapped was lodged with the police. During investigation, the accused Mobin @ Chottu (referring to the petitioner) son of Babu Khan, Sonu Sain s/o Kishan Lal, Ashok Kumar s/o Joginder Singh, Sanjay s/o Ramanand were arrested on 28.2.2009 from Hanumangarh (Rajasthan) alongwith Santro Car. They disclosed that at the instance of Raju, they had kidnapped Vinod Mittal and his son on 14.2.2009. Vinod Mittal was murdered with a knife and his dead body was thrown in the Canal water running between Rajpura and Patiala. Son of Vinod Mittal was thrown alive in the river. It was also disclosed by accused Sonu Sain that Shilpa wife of Raju and his mother-in-law Neeru Bhan were also involved in the conspiracy. On the basis of the investigation, the accused Ashok Kumar was arrested on 28.2.2009, as he was found alongwith Santro Car bearing registration No.CH-04A-5012, inside of which, there were blood stains. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with great CRM No.M 24705 of 2009 3 eloquence that Sushma Mittal wife of the deceased in her cross-examination Annexure P-3 has deposed that “I never saw Mobin (referring to the petitioner) with Raju and I still do not recognize Mobin.” This evidence clearly indicates that in fact no case is made out against the petitioner. To over come these submissions, the learned State counsel agitated at the bar that as a matter of fact, the examination -in-chief of Sushma Mittal has been deliberately withheld by the petitioner and that a glance through the same would reveal that this witness has stated in categoric terms that the murder of her husband and son has been committed by Raju, Mobin (referring to the petitioner), and their accomplices Neeru, Shilpa and Sonu after having conspired together. I have well considered the rival contentions. It is worth pointing out here that the examination-in-chief of the said witness has been intentionally held back. The learned State counsel has shown a photocopy of her statement, wherein it has been mentioned with specificity that the petitioner alongwith others had kidnapped the husband and son of this witness and they had committed their murder. Thus, needless to say, it is double murder case. In the course of investigation, the petitioner alongwith others had suffered a disclosure statement in relation to the kidnapping of Vinod Mittal and his son Yashan Mittal. They further disclosed in such statement that Vinod Mittal was done to death in his car make Santro bearing registration No. CH-04A-5012 and thereafter, they had thrown his dead body in the running water of canal. Besides this, they had also thrown his four years old son Jashan alive in the running water of canal. Their dead bodies have not been traced out so far. To my mind, it is a case of gruesome CRM No.M 24705 of 2009 4 murder. More often than not, it is seen that the heinous crimes are got committed through the juveniles by the interested persons. Prior to the amendment in this Act, the age of male juvenile offender used to be 16 years, which has now been increased to 18 years. In the present situation prevailing in the society, the boys in the age group of 14 to 16 years learn as to how to commit a horrendous act. Of course, the Legislature in its wisdom has increased the age of juvenile offender from 16 to 18 years, but in my view, instead of enhancing, it should have been reduced to 14 years. The smugglers make use of such boys in trafficking of contrabands. Section 12 of the Act reads as under: “12. 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 force, 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 CRM No.M 24705 of 2009 5 danger or that his release 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 prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (3) When such a 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.” In my estimation, if the petitioner is released on bail, his release is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or would defeat the ends of justice. Thus, no case is made out for grant of bail. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed. March 18, 2010 (Harbans Lal) gsv Judge Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No.