Juvenile Neeraj v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRR-1236-2019 (O&M) Date of decision:20.1.2020 JUVENILE NEERAJ .....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA .....Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.

GURVINDER SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioner challenges order dated 6.5.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Sonepat whereby an application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking his release on bail had been dismissed. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and is not named in the FIR and is sought to be implicated on the basis of statement of uncle of his deceased who stated that the petitioner had conspired with the remaining accused for the purpose of causing death of his nephew namely Vikas. 3.

Learned counsel has further submitted that apart from merits of the case, the petitioner deserves concession of bail on the grounds of parity since co-accused namely Puneet who was identically situated and was not named in the FIR was granted bail vide order dated 21.11.2019 in CRMGAURAV SOROT 2020.01.20 20:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) CRR-1236-2019 (O&M) M-48534-2019.

4.

Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner has been named by the uncle of the deceased, no case for grant of bail is made out. It has, however, been informed that till date only 4 PWs out of cited 25 PWs have been examined and the petitioner has been behind bars since last more than 1 year. 5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of occurrence, being aged 17 years, 7 months and 5 days, and that he has already been behind bars since more than 1 year, further detention of the , further detention of the petitioner will not petitioner will not serve any furitful purpose serve any furitful purpose as as conclusion of trial, in conclusion of trial, in its its normal course, is likely to take some time.

normal course, is likely to take some time. As such, the impugned order As such, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be on regular bail on his on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned. Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned. ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) 20.1.2020 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking?

Yes / No Whether reportable?

Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2020.01.20 20:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document