PRASHANT TOMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. C. Deepak, J. This is a criminal revision against the order dated 17-6-2003 passed by the C. J. M. Baghpat in Criminal Misc. Bail Application of Prashant Tomar (Revisionist) in Case Crime No. 39 of 2003, under Section 302/34, 120-B P. S. G. R. P. Baraut, District Baghpat and the order of learned Sessions Judge dated 25-7- 2003 rejecting his bail application No. 381 of 2003.

(2.) THE facts which emerge from the record are that Prashant Tomar is an accused in case Crime No. 39 of 2003, under Section 302/34, 120-B IPC, P. S. G. R. P. Baraut, District Baghpat. He is below 18 years alleged to be juvenile. He moved an application for bail before the C. J. M. THE C. J. M. rejected his bail application. He also filed an application for bail before the Sessions Judge concerned but the same was also rejected. THE abovenamed accused presented a Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13919 of 2003, under Section 439 Cr. P. C. before Hon'ble Court and the said bail application was also dismissed as withdrawn for filing the present revision.

(3.) THE Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000) provides for an appeal if the prayer of a delinquent is refused by the Board or the competent authority, though it is that even after 2 and 1/2 years since the enforcement of the aforesaid act the Government of this State has not constituted a Board, hence the applicant is certainly is denied of his right to move such Board for determination of his juvenile status yet this Court however, can not take upon itself the obligations of the Board. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure a person can be treated a minor if he is 16 years or below this is provided under Section 437 Cr. P. C. THE added benefits to the applicant in the circumstances of the raised age by 2 years of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000) is in the circumstance enumerated above is not available to him due to non- constitution of Board. In view of the matter since the revision is not maintenance I am not entitled to grant any benefit under the said act to the applicant. He has a remedy by way of bail under Section 439 Cr. P. C. in this Court. He had earlier filed a bail application in this Hon'ble Court but got the same dismissed as withdrawn just to file the present revision. THE advice in my opinion was wholly ill-conceived. THE remedy is still open to the applicant under Section 439 Cr. P. C. THE revision is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed. .