BHANU SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the Criminal Revision is for setting aside the order dtd. 17/9/2021 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gurugram in BA/613/2021, vide which the regular bail application of the petitioner in FIR No. 1027 dtd. 28/5/2020, under Ss. 148, 149, 302, 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Ss. 25, (IB) (a), 27 (1) of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, Gurugram, has been dismissed and also for setting aside the order dtd. 25/10/2021 passed by the Additional Sessions, Gurugram, vide which, the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that one Ram Gopal S/o Shri Krishan had given a statement that he, along with his wife Kamla and son Mannan @Mannu and daughter Shivani resides on rental basis in Gali No. 16 Nayi Basti, Gurgaon in front of the house of one Ramesh Kataria. It is further the case of the complainant-Ram Gopal that on 28/5/2020, when he had gone to Sadar Bazar, Gurugram at about 05.30 PM, his daughter Shivani had called up on his mobile phone and stated that Mannan @ Mannu had been shot and when he reached the Medanta Hospital, Gurugram, he found out that his son had died. Further, the case of the prosecution is that Mannan @ Mannu was friends with Sanchit Tripathi S/o Vinay Tripathi. The said Sanchit Tripathi was romantically involved with a girl named Sneha and, due to this, one Dushyant (co-accused) had ill-feelings towards Sanchit Tripathi and as such Dushyant used to warn Mannan @ Mannu and used to stop him from supporting Sanchit Tripathi and threatened him with dire consequences in case he does not do so. It is the case of prosecution that on 28/5/2020 when Mannan @ Mannu had gone to the shop of his friend Shivam, then Dushyant along with Hanni, Rahul, Bhanu @ Dhillu, Manish and two more boys came on an Activa and on a bike and Dhillu fired at Mannan @ Mannu.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has been in custody since 29/5/2020 and is not involved in any other case and the challan in the present case has already been filed and there are as many as 28 witnesses and none of them have been examined and, thus, the trial is likely to take time. It has further been argued by the learned counsel that as per the provisions of Sec. 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act of 2015), the maximum period for which the petitioner could be kept in a Special Home is three years and that he has already undergone more than 1 year, 05 months and 29 days in custody. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact as per the provisions of Sec. 12 of the Act 2015,in the case of a minor, bail is the rule and jail is the exception. It has been further submitted that both the Courts below have fallen in grave error in not considering the fact that the case of the present petitioner does not even remotely fall within the three reasons/circumstances mentioned under the Act of 2015 as per which the bail of the petitioner could be refused.