Manav Sharma alias Mannu v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view thereof, the present petition is disposed of with a
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 452, 506
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered vide FIR No.78 dated 24.05.2011, under Sections 323, 324, 307, 452, 148, 149, 506 IPC at Police Station Chheharta, Amritsar. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is an omnibus allegation against the petitioner that he was also armed with a Datar and was in the company of other accused who are alleged to have caused injuries to the husband and son of the complainant. The petitioner had applied for pre-arrest bail before the learned Court below which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar on 12.09.2011 on the ground that the injured persons have suffered various injuries on their head, neck and face as the husband of the complainant has suffered as many as 11 injuries and her son has suffered 10 injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a juvenile having been born on 08.11.1993. He fairly submits that neither the Certificate of 5th Class Examination, 2005 issued by the Education Department, Punjab (Annexure P-1) was produced before the learned Court below nor this issue was raised before it. However, he has referred to Section 7A(1) of the Juvenile CRM-M-31363-2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] :::::::: Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act, 2000 [for short “the Act”] to contend that the issue of juvenility can be raised before any Court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of the Act. He also relies upon an order dated
Operative part
25.05.2011 passed by this Court in CRM-M-16281-2011 titled as `Shamsher Singh alias Shera and others v. State of Punjab' to contend that the question of juvenility of the petitioner may be referred to the Principal Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, who would decide the same after taking into consideration the evidence to be led by the parties, in accordance with law, but during the pendency of the said petition, his arrest may be stayed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with his able assistance. The issue of the petitioner being a juvenile can only be decided on the basis of inquiry to be conducted in terms of Section 7A(1) of the Act by the Court for which the petitioner has to lead evidence in accordance with law. In view thereof, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall surrender/appear before the Principal Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar on or before
24.10.2011 and move an appropriate application alongwith the evidence claiming himself to be juvenile, whereupon the said Court shall take a decision in accordance with law, but during the pendency of the petition in which the petitioner is claiming himself to be juvenile, his arrest shall remain stayed on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the said Court. October 19, 2011 vinod* (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view thereof, the present petition is disposed of with a
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 452, 506.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 19 Oct 2011. The bench was RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.