CRR No.3293 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-8.10.2010 Manoj Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Naveen S.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G. Haryana. Nemo for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that originally, Bajrang Lal-respondent No.2 filed a private criminal complaint (Annexure P1) against Manoj Kumar Sharma alias Bittu-petitioner, minor son of Krishan Kumar Sharma, in which, the trial Magistrate summoned him to face trial under sections 323, 452 and 506 IPC, by virtue of order dated 31.1.2008. 2. The petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 23.11.2009, the operative part of which is as under:- “After going through the arguments advanced by both the counsels for the parties and the record available on the file, I am of the considered opinion that it is not disputed by counsel for both the parties that civil as well as criminal litigation is already pending between the parties, it is also not disputed that the petitioner is under the age of 18 years, from the perusal of lower court file and on the notices as well as bailable warrants and non bailable CRR No.3293 of 2009 2 warrants were issued against petitioner goes to show that the reports have been received that there is no son of Krishan Kumar namely Bitu and even on the warrants issued for 14.9a.2009 report has been received that Bitu alias Manoj had gone out of station and even the name Manoj has not been denied by counsel for the petitioner, in these totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, since the occurrence is not denied, the pendency of the complaint was well within the knowledge of the petitioner, as far as the question of juvenile of the petitioner is concerned that would be decided at the appropriate stage, so concession of anticipatory bail cannot be provided to the petitioner and petitioner had already been declared proclaimed offender, the file had already been consigned to the record room by the learned lower court, hence, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner can surrender before the learned lower court. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.” 3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied and filed the present petition, mainly, for the grant of anticipatory bail to him. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this regard. 5. As is evident from the record that the petitioner has only been summoned for the commission of the indicated offences in the wake of complaint. What is not disputed before me is that the petitioner is a juvenile and less than 18 years of age. Civil as well as criminal litigation are already pending between the parties. 6. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the present petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. CRR No.3293 of 2009 3 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner is directed to appear/surrender before the trial Court within two weeks from today and if he so surrenders/appears, in pursuance of this order, then the trial Court will admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to its satisfaction. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 8.10.2010 Judge AS