TULUGU JOGESH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Petitioner is the accused in G.R. Case No. 31 of 1998 corresponding to Paralakhemundi, P.S. Case No. 17 of 1998 for the offence alleged under section 376, I.P.C. After arrest he applied for bail and claimed to be a juvenile delinquent. Vide order dated 13-2-1998 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 124 of 1998 learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer on the ground that even if educational certificate shows that the petitioner was born in January, 1983, but according to prosecution, he is 18 years old and this is not the stage to decide the genuineness of the documents and to determine the exact age of the petitioner. It was further held that petitioner is a college going boy and his family is rich and influential, so his release may not be in the best interest of the investigation and trial. However, he directed that petitioner be medically examined and if he is found to be a juvenile delinquent then he may be shifted to Observation Home after obtaining permission of the court. Needless to say that learned Sessions Judge did not properly appreciate the fact and the law and passed an erroneous order.

(2.) Learned AddI. Standing Counsel also argued that bail should be refused on the ground that petitioners release on bail would defeat the ends of justice. In that connection, he relied upon the case of Bechan v. State of U.P. That decision is of no help to support the contention of the State inasmuch as in that case it was found that Bechan was not a juvenile and therefore Allahabad High Court refused to giant him the benefit of section 18 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (in short, the Act). Except borrowing the language from section 18 of the Act, learned AddI. Standing Counsel did not state how release of the petitioner shall defeat ends of justice. No factual supplementation was done in that respect.

(3.) In the case of Deoki Nandan Dayma v. State of U.P. and another, Apex Court in relation to determination of the age of a person to decide if he is a juvenile has held that entry in the School Register as to the date of birth of a student is admissible in evidence. In the case of Bhola Bhagat etc. v. State of Bihar. Apex Court has held that when a plea is raised on behalf of the accused that he is a child i.e., a juvenile delinquent and if the court entertains any doubt about the age as claimed by the accused, it becomes obligatory for the court to hold an enquiry for determination of the age of the accused. It was observed that: Keeping in view the beneficial nature of the socially oriented legislation, it is an obligation of the court where such a plea is raised to examine that plea with care and it cannot fold its hands and without returning a positive finding regarding that plea, deny the benefit of the provisions of an accused. The court must hold an enquiry and return a finding regarding the age, one way of the other . We expect the High Court and subordinate courts to deal with such cases with more sensitivity, as otherwise the object of the Acts would be frustrated and the effort of the Legislature to reform the delinquent child and reclaim him as a useful member of the society would be frustrated. (From the paragraph 18 of the middle)