MOHDDAHANRMIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) The petitioner alleges that he is a juvenile below 16 years of age. Annexure-3 to the petition shows that submission was made before the Chief Judicial Magistrate that the petitioner is below 16 years of age and has been remanded to Remand Home and therefore, he was entitled to bail under the provisions of Section 16 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, has not recorded any opinion about the age of the petitioner. He also does not appear to have held any enquiry for determination of the age under Section 32 of the Act. If a person, accused of an offence is found to be a juvenile then his bail matter has to be considered under section 18 of the Act. If a person is aggrieved by an order passed under Section 18 of the Act, he has the remedy to order an appeal before the Court of Sessions under Section 37 of the Act. The High Court has been given rcvisional power under section 38 of the Act.

(3.) In these circumstances, in the case of juvenile, his bail petition has to be considered only under the Juvenile Justice Act and the petition under section 439, Cr. P. C. would not be maintainable. As the age of the petitioner has not been determined by Juvenile Court the matter has to be sent back the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate; who shall conduct an enquiry under section 32 of the Act to determine the age of the petitioner is found to be a juvenile below 16 years of age then his bail matter should be considered by Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 18 of the Act. However, if on such determination of age the petitioner is found to be a juvenile then he can move this court again under section 439, Cr. P. C.