VINAY PRASAD CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) In the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner No. 2 Sanjay Chauhan, is aged about fourteen and a half years, which shows that the petitioner No.2 is claiming himself to be juvenile. However his age does not appear to have been determined by a Juvenile Court under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act. If an accused is juvenile, the Juvenile Court has to first determine has age under Section 32 Juvenile Justice Act (hereinafter refereed to as the Act) after holding due inquiry. If after such enquiry the accused is found to be juvenile, then his bail matter will have to be considered under Section 18 of the Act and not under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) In the present case, the age of petitioner No.2 does not appear to have been determined by a Juvenile Court under Section 32 of the Act, so there is no option but to remit his case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Patna, who shall be deemed to be exercising the powers of Juvenile Court in absence of creation of any Juvenile Court for that area by the State Government. His case is remitted accordingly to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Patna, who shall in exercise of powers of Juvenile Court shall hold inquiry under Section 32 of the Act and shall determine the age of petitioner No.2. If on such determination of age petitioner No.2 is found to be juvenile, his bail matter will be considered by the Juvenile Court under Section 18 of the Act. However, if petitioner No.2 is not found to be juvenile after determination of age under Section 32 of the Act, he shall be at liberty to move this Court again for consideration of his bail matter under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application insofar as it relates to petitioner No.2 stands disposed of accordingly.