Allowed

Harpal Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Sept 2012CRM-M/20135/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to a juvenile petitioner who failed to raise the plea earlier. The court directed the petitioner to join investigation and ordered release on bail invoking Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to join investigation; in event of arrest, to be released on bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 subject to specified conditions.

Harpal Singh Vs State of Punjab — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-20135 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Date of Decision: September 20, 2012 Crl. Misc. No. M-20135 of 2012 (O&M)

Harpal Singh @ Pala

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Mr. B.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. P.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest

¶15

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶16

This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 26, dated 12.05.2011, under Sections 307, 326, 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC, P.S. Purana Shalla, District Gurdaspur and now offence under Section 307 has been converted to 308/34 IPC after enquiry.

¶17

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Vikram Kumar has informed the Court that the petitioner is juvenile. His date of birth is 26.03.1994 as per School Leaving Certificate (P-3) and on the date of registration of the FIR he was below 18 years. Rajasthan High Court while examining the provisions of anticipatory bail and regular bail under Sections 439 and 438 Cr.P.C. can be filed if there is change in the fact or law which

¶18

-2-

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-20135 of 2012 (O&M)

¶20

requires the earlier view being interfered with. The petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected on 12.08.2011 without taking the plea that he was juvenile. High Court dismissed the criminal revision on 08.09.2011 after verification done by the ASI. This Court is of the view that on the date of incident, the petitioner was below 18 years of age as per custody certificate. Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for brevity 'the Act') is as follows:

¶21

“12 . Bail of juvenile.- (1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall,notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, 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. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station,such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail

¶22

Crl. Misc. No. M-20135 of 2012 (O&M)

¶23

-3-

¶24

under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.”

¶25

Since the petitioner had not taken the plea that he was juvenile, therefore, his case has now been taken under the aforesaid Act. .

¶26

Accordingly, petitioner is directed to join the investigation as

¶27

and when called by the Investigating Officer. In the event of the arrest, he shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer on his furnishing bail bonds/sureties to his satisfaction, the petitioner shall furnish the fresh bail

¶28

bond after presentation of the challan as per Section 12 of the Act, subject

¶29

to the conditions mentioned below, as envisaged in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C :-

¶30

i. a condition that the person shall make themselves available for interrogation by Police Officer as and when required;

¶31

ii. a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶32

iii.a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court

¶33

iv. such other condition as may be imposed under sub section (3) of Section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section

Disposed of.

(RITU BAHRI)

JUDGE

September 20, 2012 Atul

Harpal Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpal Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulchain Singh Vs Amarjit Singh etc.

Punjab Financial Corporation Vs M/S Standard Rice Mills and Ors.

Preet Mehta Vs M/S Shiv Shakti Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.

Abhishek Tyagi Vs State of Haryana

(O&M) Fquir Chand Vs Hy State

Faquir Chand Vs Hy State