IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-1281 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.3.2011 Daljit Singh alias Rinku …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present: Mr. Jagdeep S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner Daljit Singh alias Rinku seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 7.6.2010 for the offences under Sections 302, 376, 201 and 34 IPC at Police Station Ghagga District Patiala. The charges in the case have been framed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Patiala on 12.3.2011 for the offence under Section 376, 302 and 201 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Krishan Kumar whose youngest daughter (victim) aged 14-15 years was a school student and had appeared in her 10th class examination. On 5.6.2010 Krishan Kumar, complainant and others after having their dinner, slept separately. At about 4/5 a.m. in the morning, when the complainant got up, he found that his youngest daughter (victim) was missing from the house. After searching for her in the neighbourhood, they could not find her. Regarding this, a report No.6 was got registered at the Police Post Badshahpur on 6.6.2010. Till date of registering the FIR on 7.6.2010, the girl could not be traced; although, the CRM No. M-1281 of 2011 [2] complainant was searching for her. The complainant was then informed by one Gulab Singh son of Jagtar Singh that when he was coming from village Bhakhra to his village, he saw two boys namely Ravinder Singh alias Ravi Master and Daljit Singh alias Rinku (petitioner). They were taking the daughter (victim) of the complainant towards Bhakhra. Thereafter, Phoola Singh informed that on 5/6.6.2010 at about 2.30 p.m. when he was going to village Ghagga and near Bhakhra Canal bridge, he saw Ravinder Singh alias Ravi and Daljit Singh alias Rinku (petitioner) were standing there along with a girl. On seeing the light of his motorcycle, they immediately threw the girl in the Bhakhra Canal. In the meantime, Jastar Singh of the village of the complainant informed the complainant that he had seen on the same night that Ravinder Singh alias Ravi Master and Daljit Singh alias Rinku (petitioner) were coming from the side of Bhakhra Canal bridge towards village Kalwan in a very frightened and scared condition. The complainant was convinced that Ravinder Singh alias Ravi and Daljit Singh alias Rinku (petitioner) had taken his daughter from home and after committing rape on her, they killed her after throwing her in the Bhakhra Canal. Regarding the occurrence, the complainant along with his brother Sita Ram and Sarpanch Sardara Singh were going to the Police Station to lodge a report that the Police met him and the complainant got his statement recorded which he had heard and was correct. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case of the petitioner has already been sent to the Juvenile Court as the petitioner is a juvenile. He has referred to the order dated 12.11.2010 (Annexure P1) whereby the petitioner has been forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for CRM No. M-1281 of 2011 [3] trial. It is also submitted that the offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out as there is no witness in that regard. Besides, the offence under Section 302 IPC has been added only on the statement of Phoola Singh which is a weak type of evidence. In response, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have thrown the minor daughter of the complainant in the Bhakhra Canal. Phoola Singh had informed the family of the victim that he had seen Ravinder Singh alias Ravi and Daljit Singh alias Rinku (petitioner) who were standing along the bridge of the Bhakhra Canal and they had pushed the victim in the canal. One Jastar Singh had informed that he had last seen the accused Ravinder Singh alias Ravi and Daljit Singh alias Rinku (petitioner) and they were frightened and scared at that time. The case involves serious allegations of throwing a minor girl in the Bhakhra Canal. The body of the victim has not been recovered till date. The corpus delecti to be established is an important ingredient for the commission of offence of murder. The case is based only on the statement of Phoola Singh and Jastar Singh. No medical examination regarding the allegations of rape are there. The petitioner is a juvenile and Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (“Act” – for short) envisages that where 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 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 CRM No. M-1281 of 2011 [4] 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. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of said Section 12 of the Act and in the absence of corpus delecti, it is to be proved by leading evidence as regards the offences committed. In the circumstances, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Patiala shall be admitted to bail. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Patiala shall consider the evidence and material as adduced before it uninfluenced by any observations made herein. (S.S. SARON) March 31, 2011 JUDGE amit