IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.1443 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.9.2011 Rahul Malhan ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.B.S.Teji, Sr.DAG, Punjab for the respondent. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The instant petition has been filed seeking concession of bail for the petitioner on the ground that he is a juvenile. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the impugned orders dated 29.4.2011 and 4.7.2011 that the reasoning adopted by both the Courts below is erroneous and contrary to the language of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and merely because the offence is heinous would not be sufficient to deny the concession of bail, and further, still the reasoning of the Court that the case falls under the exceptions to the statute is vague, as no elaborative reference has been made to justify such an observation. Learned counsel for the State of Punjab has strenuously opposed the bail on the ground that two murders have been Crl.Rev.No.1443 of 2011 (O&M) -2- committed and the custody certificate that he has obtained also reveals the involvement of the petitioner in another offences under Sections 302, 392 IPC as also under the Arms Act. I have considered the matter and have evaluated the contentions that have been raised before this Court. Section 12 (1) of the Act is extracted here below :- “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 danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.” There is, indeed, no doubt that the provisions of the Act are intended to secure a protection to the juvenile from the hazards of criminal prosecution, but yet there are exceptions which have been carved out to deny such a benefit to a juvenile. The court is certainly empowered to decline the concession of bail to a juvenile if it appears to it that there are reasonable grounds to believe Crl.Rev.No.1443 of 2011 (O&M) -3- that such a 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. There is another option given to the Court to consider the placing of the juvenile under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or a fit person. If the facts of the case are to be seen, according to the FIR, which has been lodged by one Rakesh Mohan Puri, he found the dead bodies of his wife and daughter in the house which had been broken in. After the murders the culprits had decamped with the goods and valuables lying in the house. The deceased had been done to death with sharp edged weapons. The brutality of the offence where two lives have been extinguished and the involvement of the petitioner in another FIR of the like nature leaves to an irresistible conclusion that he is already in the association of elements of criminal intent and releasing him on bail is likely to bring him further into association with known criminals. As the petitioner is involved in heinous crime therefore releasing him on bail is likely to expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger as well. The petition is, therefore, rejected. However, nothing said herein shall be construed to be an expression on the merits of the case as the observations are made entirely to answer the prayer of the petitioner for bail on the ground of juvenility. 29.9.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss