GOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for cancellation of bail under Sec. 439(2) Cr.RC. has been filed on behalf of complainant Gopal Singh. If appears that Zaheer Abbas, non-petitioner No. 2 was not found a juvenile within the meaning of Sec. 2(h) of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. But with the coming into force of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 w.e.f. 1.4.2001, non-petitioner No. 2 being less than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence was released on bail presumably treating him as a juvenile under Sec. 2(k) of this new Act. The complainant has, therefore, sought the cancellation of his ball on the ground that the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 being applicable to the non- petitioner No. 2, the order granting bail to non-petitioner No. 2 treating him a juvenile is Illegal and improper.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Slate.

(3.) Without going into the controversy as to the factum of non-petitioner No. 2 being a juvenile and the legality of the impugned order, I think that non-petitioner No. 2, Zaheer Abbas was in any case less than 21 years of age on the date of occurrence and he could be granted the indulgence of bail in view of the provisions of Sec. 437 Cr.RC. even if the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act not taken into consideration. There is no allegation that he has misused the liberty of bail granted to him. So, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi in Cr. Misc. (Bail) Case No. 65/01 pertaining to F.I.R. No. 115/99 PS Palri calls for any interference at this stage. It also cannot be said that the impugned order was beyond the legal competence of the learned Court below. I, therefore, do not find any valid and cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order and to cancel the bail application at this stage. Accordingly this application is hereby dismissed. Application dismissed.