Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Bhardwaj vs State Of Haryana on 8 October, 2021
CRM-M-20015-2020 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
CRM-M-20015-2020
Date of Decision: 08.10.2021
Ajay Bhardwaj ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Amitabh Tiwari , Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Singh Chaudhary, Addl. A.G. Haryana
for the respondent- State.
****
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)
Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
The petitioner seeks regular bail in case, FIR No.183 dated
29.05.2019 under Sections 302, 120-B and 397 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station
Gurugram City, District Gurugram.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram had passed an order dated 18.07.2019
vide which the petitioner was declared a juvenile in conflict with law at the
time of commission of offence, whereas in the order dated 09.10.2019
passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gurugram, a
conclusion has been drawn that if the Juvenile commits an offence, then he
commits it as an adult. The petitioner has been involved in the present case
on the disclosure statement of the co-accused that he was doing recci at the
1 of 3
relevant moment. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in
custody since 15.07.2019. In support of his arguments learned counsel for
the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in CRM-M No. 3049 of 2018 titled as Happy versus State of
Haryana decided on 26.10.2018.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per
Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000 there are three situations for refusal of bail to a juvenile which read as
under :-
(i) if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the
release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association
with any known criminal;
(ii) the release will expose the juvenile to moral, physical or
psychological danger ; and
(iii) his release would defeat the ends of justice.
It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner does not fall in the above said conditions and should not be
denied the benefit of bail as a juvenile in conflict with law.
On the other hand, Learned State counsel has submitted that as
per the disclosure statement of the petitioner and during remand the
recovery had been effected from the house of the petitioner but he has not
disputed the fact that petitioner has been in custody since 15.07.2019 and no
other case is pending against the petitioner. The prosecution witnesses are
yet to be examined.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has been in custody since 15.07.2019. The trial
will take time to conclude because of Covid-19 pandemic. No useful
purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
2 of 3
Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the
petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate.
(HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
JUDGE
October 08, 2021
kavneet singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
