PAYAL TANDON @ KITTY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the date of the incident, Payal Tandon alias Kitty accused was less than 18 years of age and therefore, a juvenile and thus entitled to be released on bail by virtue of provisions of Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. The Sessions Judge while declining bail to the petitioner had also noticed that in case she was less than 18 years of age, she was entitled to be released on bail, but relying upon the entry made in the Class X examination form, he held that as per admission made by the petitioner herself, she was more than 18 years of age. The Sessions Judge had also noticed that there were three other birth eatries which were relevant; two being entries in the Primary School registers and the third being in the passport of her mother, in which the name of the petitioner as also her date of birth had been entered and the petitioner had been shown to be less than 18 years in those three documents. It was sought to be explained by the petitioner's counsel before the Sessions Judge that the entry in the Xth Class Examination form was, as a matter of fact, made in order to enable her to appear in the said examination as the minimum age for appearance in the examination was 14 years and for that reason the date of birth of the petitioner was changed.

(2.) AT the time of initial hearing in this case, notice was issued to the Advocate General, Punjab for May 25, 1994, and the case was thereafter adjourned on a number of occasions. On June 6, 1994, it was directed by this Court that in view of the conflicting entries regarding the age of the petitioner, it was appropriate that she be re -examined by a Board of Doctors. In compliance with this order, the report has been received from the Civil Surgeon, Jalandhar. This report given by doctors, Mrs. Sudershan Goyal, Harjinder Singh and Jaspal Singh stated that the petitioner was examined on June 15, 1994 and after recording reasons, the Board came to the conclusion that on the date of her examination, the petitioner was between 17 and 18 years. It is apparent, therefore, from the evidence so far produced in the case that the petitioner is prima facie a juvenile and in the light of Section 18 of the Act, entitled to be released on bail. She is, therefore, allowed bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Jalandhar.

(3.) HOWEVER , it is made clear that the observation made above are only for the purpose of granting bail to the petitioner and for no other purpose.