Dismissed

Mohd. Hussain @ Babbu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Nov 2009CRR/2487/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the petitioner's plea for regular bail. Being a juvenile facing trial for raping a 10-year-old girl, the Court held that bail would expose the accused to moral danger and defeat the ends of justice, distinguishing cited precedents where bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

The plea for regular bail was dismissed.

Mohd. Hussain @ Babbu Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 2487 of 2009

¶3

Date of decision : November 19, 2009

¶4

Mohd. Hussain alias Babu

....Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶10

Present : Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab

¶12

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶13

Mohd. Hussain alias Babu has filed this revision petition. The petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No. 77 dated 1.5.2009, under section 376 IPC, Police Station Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur, before Juvenile Justice Board, being juvenile. Bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sangrur vide order dated 12.6.2009 Annexure P/2. Appeal preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide judgment dated 4.9.2009, Annexure P/1. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this revision petition seeking regular bail.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶15

case file.

¶16

Ordinarily the petitioner being juvenile would have been entitled to bail, however, in the instant case, the petitioner allegedly

¶17

Criminal Revision No. 2487 of 2009

¶18

-2-

¶19

committed rape on a girl aged just 10 years. Keeping in view the said fact, the courts below have expressed apprehension that releasing the petitioner on bail would expose him to moral or psychological danger. Grant of bail to the petitioner would also defeat the ends of justice.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner cited one judgment of this Court in case Amit versus State of Haryana , 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 203 and a judgment of Delhi High Court in case Sandeep (In J.C.) versus The State NCT of Delhi , 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 146. However, in those cases, bail was granted in the facts of those cases. In the instant case, keeping in view all the circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

¶21

Dismissed.

¶22

November 19, 2009 ' dalbir'

Mohd. Hussain @ Babbu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Hussain @ Babbu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Madan Vs Vasdev

Muhru @ Moru Vs State of Haryana

Thakar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Tarlochan Singh Daley Vs Satnam Kaur

Vinod Kumar Vs State

Chaman Vs State of Punjab and Ors.