RIFAQAT Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a bail application of the applicant in case crime No. 326 of 1998, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Kiccha, District Udham Singh Nagar.

(2.) THE bail application was moved be"¢ fore the Sessions Judge on the ground that the applicant is a juvenile and is entitled for bail under Section 18 of the Juvenile Act. The learned counsel for the applicant also submitted kutumb register and a certificate issued by the Pradhan of village and the bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned Sessions Judge rejected the documents. However, this Court vide its order dated 5.1.2000 directed the Chief Medical Officer Udhan Singh Nagar to submit his report regarding the age of the applicant. The Chief Medical Officer vide his report dated 31.1.2000 has reported the approximate age of the applicant to be 01'20 years on perusal of the report of the Chief Medical Officer and the Kutumb register, the difference comes to be of two years. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 1. reported in 1982(2) SCC page 538 Jaya Mala vs. Home Secreted Government of Jammu and Kashmir and others and the second reported in 1991 SCC (Crl) page 438 Daya Chand vs. Sahiv Singh and others. I have gone through both these cases. Ion both these cases benefit of 2 to 3 years have been given to the applicant for holding the appellant to the juvenile considering the medical report of the medical officer concerned. Here in the present case also 2 years difference is found between the two document i.e., the Kutumb Register and the medical report. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant is entitled for the benefit of relaxation for considering him to be juvenile.