Harsh Kumar Chopra Alias Gandhi v. State Of Punjab

     
  

   


   !

"#$

$%&'& ( ) ) 
  

        


  * + ) ,


, ,  



 !"

#   

$   %! 

&  !"

# #

'

, ,  - ) ./"01 (  )  '# *+, 



 ' # $ $''  -.

(/0 12((12(3 # +0*4! +* 5# +21 ' 6 $ '#  7  %#8 1 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case where the petitioner is in custody for about four years and eight months and the petitioner was juvenile at the time of the alleged commission of the offence and he was so declared as a child in conflict with law by the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 25.11.2020 and thereafter the aforesaid order was assailed by the complainant before this Court in CRR-287 of 2021 wherein the operation of

  the impugned order was stayed on 15.03.2021 and in this way the order by which the petitioner was declared as a juvenile as a child in conflict with law has since been stayed by this Court in the aforesaid case. He submitted that be that as it may, the petitioner has already faced incarceration for about four years and eight months and the petitioner is not a habitual offender and is not involved in any other case. He further submitted that four prosecution witnesses have already been examined including the complainant and the trial of the case may take long time and the benefit of the safeguards provided under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act be also granted to the petitioner considering the fact that the petitioner was juvenile at the time of alleged commission of crime and although the matter is still sub-judice before this Court and therefore the petitioner may be considered for the grant of regular bail.

3.

On the other hand, $   '%!  has submitted, on instructions from Aaswant Singh, % 7   '# that so far as the custody period of the petitioner is concerned, it is correct and it is also correct that four prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the petitioner is not involved in any other case.
 9"

 $ '   $  #   
  '

$9 # 4## #''#

'   1# 9

'#  

 7 #9# " 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.

The petitioner is stated to be in custody for about four years and eight months and as per learned counsel for the parties, four prosecution witnesses have

  already been examined and the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Today this Court has also dealt with the bail petition of the other co-accused, namely, : $ :   4*+*+0 1212'7'$  '7   ") 9#'"'7 '!' :$" 1/((1212  9'7#

' 



   7 9# 9#'#'# '#9'9977

8 7 

9 '# the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail purely on the basis of long custody of the petitioner and also antecedents in this regard. Without going into the rights of the petitioner for seeking benefit under Section 12 of the JJ Act, this Court is of the view that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances particularly the long custody of the petitioner, petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

;'7 the present petition is allowed. ) ''' $''   ;    7    #  #    $  '   <7     #  ''

<%7 $# # 0
9" 7$ " "''  =   

    # '7   

 #     .

, , 1



-      > &$ ?<.

>

' ?<.