ROHIT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Rohit, who is confined in Observation Home, Hisar being juvenile has filed the present petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 402 dtd. 22/4/2016 registered under Ss. 302,201,120-B,34 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Civil Line, Rohtak.

(2.) Earlier the petition for grant of bail was filed before Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 29/9/2018 on the ground that there is every likelihood of the petitioner of misusing concession of bail in case the same is granted to him.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that name of the petitioner was neither mentioned in the FIR nor any specific role was attributed to him. No identification parade was conducted and for the first time the petitioner was identified by the witnesses in the Court. The petitioner being juvenile has falsely been implicated in the case only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, which has no evidentiary value. The petitioner is in custody since 23/4/2016. Learned counsel further contends that initially three accused were there but after recording the statement of eye witness-Raj Kumar under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., six persons were named including the petitioner. Learned counsel also contends that as per provisions of Sec. 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, ,2015'), the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right but still his case for grant of bail has not been considered by learned Additional Sessions Judge.