While adjudicating on the bail application of a juvenile in a murder case, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana while overturning the decision of the lower court held that as per section 12 of the 2015 POCSO Act, it is a mandate to release a child on bail and the basis that the parents do not have any control over the child is not a valid justification for declining the bail
Brief Facts:
Since both petitions arose from the same FIR they were taken together, the first petition has been filed for the grant of regular bail by the petitioner Neeraj, whereas the second one has been filed by juvenile S challenging the order of the additional sessions judge where his bail application was declined.
The facts of the case are that on 30.06.2020, two police officials who had gone for their night duty in the government vehicle were found dead. During the post-mortem examination of one of the deceased, a car number was found to be written on his palm which was then traced to a person called Sandeep who later on interrogation disclosed the whole story of the events that occurred. According to his testimony, a person named Amit and the petitioner S were indulging in intercourse, while two of their friends were on the other end, and in the night the deceased officials came for inquiry. Then they were killed by Amit and the others including the petitioner S thrashed the police officials and Amit is the one who killed the officials. Later Amit was killed in a police encounter, while Asha and petitioner S were arrested. They admitted the guilt and narrated the entire factum and the matter of occurrence. Later on the other petitioner, Neeraj was also arrested and he also admitted his guilt.
The petitioner S had filed for bail in the juvenile board which was dismissed by the court and the appeal was also dismissed by Ld, additional sessions judge,
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It has been contended by the juvenile petitioner ‘S’ that when her mother came to know about the incident, she took her daughter and niece Asha to the police station to explain how the officials were killed by Amit. It has been further contended that 10-12 police officials had committed rape upon the petitioner and her cousin, they were brutally beaten and no medical help was provided to them when the mother came to know she filed an FIR. It has been further contended that when Amit and the petitioner were sitting in the car, the police officials came in drunk condition and started demanding money and asking questions, they even started molesting the petitioner and her cousin. Then on the protest by Amit, there was a heated argument and in a fit of anger Amit injured both the officials to protect the petitioner S and Asha. And it has been alleged that to destroy the entire evidence and to save the police officials as well as to create a new story police killed Amit in a fake counter. Further, it has also been contended that S has been wrongly declined bail on the ground that if she is released again, she may go back to the same environment and be exposed to moral and physical danger. It has also been contended that the courts below have commented on her character just because she went to meet Amit and based on the submissions it has been prayed that bail is granted to S.
On behalf of the other petitioner, Neeraj it has been contended that he is not named in the FIR and has simply been arrested based on a disclosure statement by the co-accused and the only attribution to him is that he identified the knife used by Amit and demarcated the place of occurrence; that the main accused Amit, who killed both the police officials with a knife, has already been killed by the police in an encounter
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has opposed both the petitions and it has been contended that both the petitioners were found at the spot of the crime and participated in the crime along with the co-accused.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the petitioner S is a child and that no doubt that a crime is committed but section 12 of the 2015 act mandates that a child is released on bail when he is apprehended or detained in connection with an offense, which is a special provision to be considered in exclusion to CrPC. The only embargo is not releasing such a child is that there appears reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal; or to expose him to moral, physical, or psychological danger; or that release of such a person would defeat the ends of justice and the case of “Dharmender -Juvenile v. State of U.P. and others”.
The court then noted that in the present case, on one hand, it has been contended that Amit killed the two officials and on the other hand it has been contended that they were killed in a fit of rage by Amit because they were molesting the girls and it is a matter of trial. It was further held that declining the bail of S is not justified by observing that the parents of the petitioner do not have control over her as she was out of home at odd hours it was noted by the court that this cannot be the reason for concluding that the petitioner was likely to expose herself to moral or physical danger. It was also noted that S had been arrested only based on the disclosure statement of the co-accused Sandeep and there is no prosecution allegation.
With regards to the petitioner Neeraj, the Court noted that the only attribution to him is his presence at the spot and that he had identified the knife used by Amit.
The decision of the Court:
The criminal revision of the petitioner S was accepted and bail was granted to the juvenile S. Merit was found in the petition of Neeraj and he was directed to be released on regular bail.
Case Title: Neeraj v. State of Haryana and S (minor) through her mother K v. State of Haryana
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Deepak Gupta
Case no.: CRM-M-22942-2022 and CRR-1261-2020
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr.Sukesh Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M 22942-2022)
Mr.R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate with Mr.M.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRR-1261-2020)
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
