Criminal Revision No.2682 of 2008 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Revision No.2682 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.1.2009
Jasraj Karan Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. B.S.Bhasaur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
Jasraj Karan Singh @ Allu-petitioner had applied for bail
on the ground that he was a juvenile in FIR No.163 dated 6.10.2008,
Police Station Sadar Dhuri, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The said application was dismissed by the Principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sangrur vide order dated
4.11.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an
appeal and the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide order dated 6.12.2008. Hence, the
Criminal Revision No.2682 of 2008 (O&M) 2
present revision petition.
Prosecution case, as noticed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sangrur in para 6 of its order dated 6.12.2008, is
reproduced herein below:-
“In the instant case, FIR was registered on the basis of
statement made by one Nirbhay Singh, Sarpanch of the
village Bhullerheri. He had informed the police that one
Sadhu Singh son of Nikka Singh, aged about 70 years
was residing in their village. He had two sons and four
daughters. All the daughters are married. His married
son Ashok Singh had died and the family of Ashok Singh
was settled at Dhuri. His younger son Bahadur Singh
along with other members of the family was also settled at
Dhuri. Wife of Sadhu Singh had died about two years
back. Sadhu Singh was alone. He had given his land to
his sons in equal share after keeping 10 bighas of land for
him. Said ten bighas of land had been given on theka by
him to his son Bahadur Singh which was the only source
of his livelihood. On the date of occurrence, he had
received a telephonic information regarding death of
Sadhu Singh. When he entered the house of Sadhu
Singh, from the stair case of his neighbour, he found that
a gas cylinder was lying near the cot of Sadhu Singh.
Ruber pipe fitted with the regulator had been cut and gas
Criminal Revision No.2682 of 2008 (O&M) 3was leaking from the said cylinder. He had switched off
the regular. He found that Sadhu Singh had been
strangulated with a plastic rope. Articles of his box has
been searched by someone. It was stated by him that it
appeared that someone killed Sadhu Singh and he
wanted to set the house on fire and for that reason gas
cylinder was open and even a burning candle was placed
in the courtyard near the dead body of Sadhu Singh.
During the investigation, police recorded the statement of
Gurdas Singh, chowkidar of the village, who informed that
Gurpreet Singh @ Nony grand son of Sadhu Singh along
with two other boys one of whom was later on identified
as appellant was seen near the house of Sadhu Singh
during the late hours of the night during the day his
murder was committed. They had left the house on a
motor cycle. Even Bahadur Singh son of the deceased
Sadhu Singh made a statement that his nephew Gurpree
Singh is drug addict and he is in bad company. He had
committed the murder of Sadhu Singh with the help of his
companions. Even Gurdas Singh made a supplementary
statement that all the three accused were drug addicts.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
admittedly the petitioner was a juvenile and was entitled to be
released on bail as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care
Criminal Revision No.2682 of 2008 (O&M) 4
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short “the Act”).
The Courts below have declined the concession of bail to the
petitioner on the ground that there was a supplementary statement of
Gurdas Singh on record, stating that all the three accused were drug
addicts. The Court below held that since the petitioner and his companions
were drug addicts and have committed the murder of Sadhu Singh in a pre-
planned manner then it would not be proper to release the petitioner on bail
because he would fall in bad company.
As per Section 12 of the Act, a juvenile is to be released on
bail with or without surety 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.
In the present case the petitioner and his co-accused
have committed murder of Sadhu Singh, who is grand father of co-
accused Gurpreet Singh. As per supplementary statement of Gurdas
Singh, petitioner and his co-accused are drug addicts. The
petitioner, if released on bail can fall in bad company. In these
circumstance, the Courts below have rightly declined the concession
of bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the impugned orders do not call for any
interference and this revision petition is dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
January 23, 2009
anita