KULDEEP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this criminal revision petition is to the order dated 16.12.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner praying for grant of bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 147, dated 28.7.2013, registered at Police Station, Ding, District Sirsa, was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel contends that both the learned Courts below have wrongly noted that the petitioner was the main accused since he had caused knife blow on the abdomen of Jagdish (since deceased); in fact, the petitioner, Kuldeep, is the son of Chiranji Lal, who was armed with Bali (wooden stick) and allegedly hit the deceased at the end when all the co -accused had already caused injuries; concededly the petitioner is a juvenile and under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for brevity, 'the Act') is entitled to bail; except the disclosure statement of the co -accused of the petitioner, no other material is emerging on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged murder of Jagdish; and that the petitioner is behind the bars from 8.8.2013. He further submits that the petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Des Raj of Police Station, Ding, District Sirsa, very fairly concedes that the date of birth of the petitioner is 16.3.1997 and, as such, he was juvenile on the date of occurrence, i.e. 28.7.2013. He further fairly concedes that the petitioner is facing inquiry/trial before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sirsa. He also concedes that the knife was used by Kuldeep son of Bhoop Singh, a co -accused of the petitioner, whereas the petitioner, Kuldeep son of Chiranji Lal, was armed with a lathi . He also concedes that except the disclosure statement of the co -accused of the petitioner, there is no other evidence connecting the petitioner with the murder of Jagdish.