Bansi Lal And Another vs State Of Haryana on 9 March, 2009

Crl. Misc No. M-6076 of 2009                                              1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                 Crl. Misc No. M-6076 of 2009
                                 Date of decision : 09.03.2009


Bansi Lal and another
                                                          ....Petitioners

                                       V/s

State of Haryana
                                                          ....Respondent.

BEFORE : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present: Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.

RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)

The petitioners have preferred this petition for pre-arrest bail in

complaint No. 567 of 2007 registered under Sections 452, 302, 506, 364/34

IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

Counsel for the petitioners, has mainly contended that both the

petitioners are juveniles and thus, a directions needs to be issued for an

enquiry into the juvenility of the petitioners under Section 7-A of Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. During the pendency of

such enquiry, counsel has prayed for stay of arrest of the petitioners.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given

careful thought to the facts of the case.

It is apparent that petitioners approached this Court for grant of

anticipatory bail earlier also vide Crl. Misc. No. 16449 of 2008 The said

application was dismissed on 20.11.2008 with the following order:-

” No ground to grant anticipatory bail. Dismissed.

However, counsel for the petitioners contends that the
present petitioners shall surrender before the appropriate Court
Crl. Misc No. M-6076 of 2009 2

and move an application for regular bail. If upon surrender the
present petitioners move an application for regular bail, the
concerned Court shall dispose of the said application for the
same day but on merits after due notice to the
complainant/State.

Sd/ ARVIND KUMAR
JUDGE “

The petitioners instead of surrendering before the concerned

Court as stated in the aforesaid order, moved an another anticipatory bail

application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, However,

Additional Sessions Judge, rejected the prayer for pre-arrest bail on the

ground that the petitioners have not surrendered before the Magistrate. In

case they had done so, there case would immediately have been referred to

Juvenile Justice Board, where they could be granted bail. The Additional

Sessions Judge has refused to order an enquiry under Section 7-A of Act as

the instant proceedings is pending adjudication before the judicial

magistrate.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit

case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners as they have not complied

with the order dated 20.11.2008, passed by this Court, instead they have

chosen to move the second anticipatory bail application before this Court.

On a pointed query put to the counsel for the petitioners, whether the second

bail application was maintainable, counsel was not able to dispute the

preposition that the same was maintainable.

In view of the above discussions, the application for pre-arrest

bail of the petitioners is devoid of any merit the same is hereby dismissed.

09.03.2009                                                  (RAJAN GUPTA)
Ajay                                                           JUDGE