ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the second bail application preferred by the appellant herein in Criminal Appeal No. 4380 of 2007 dated 09.08.2011. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has observed that the said application filed by the appellant, inter alia, claiming himself to be a juvenile at the time of the incident, would be considered at the time of hearing of the main appeal on merits.

3. The appellant is convicted and sentenced by the judgment and Order dated 04/05.6.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 687 of 1998 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge has imposed a punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The appellant was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by the order so made, the appellant and others have approached the High Court by way of Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant has preferred an application, inter alia, claiming that he was a juvenile, as defined under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ('the Act' for short) and accordingly requested the Court to invoke the provisions of the Act and grant him the relief. The Court, while considering the aforesaid prayer made in the application has merely observed that the request made in the application would be considered by the Court at the time of final hearing of the appeal. It is this observation of the Court that has brought the appellant before us in this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. We have also perused the judgment and order passed by the High Court. Further, we have carefully gone through the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. A bare perusal of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder would give a clear indication that whenever a claim is made that a person was juvenile at the time of the incident, the same has to be considered at the earliest by following the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the same cannot be postponed till the appeal is finally heard.

5. In our considered view, the entire object and purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act which is in the nature of beneficial legislation, would be defeated and frustrated, if the application for determination of the Juvenility of the accused is postponed indefinitely. The determination of accrual of benefits under this Act must be ascertained at earliest; otherwise it would amount to depriving a person, in case his juvenility at the time of offence is confirmed, from enjoying his legal and constitutional rights and protection flowing from this Act. Therefore, Section 7A of the Act is very wide in its ambit to encompass the ascertainment of the question of juvenility of an accused/person, at any stage even after the disposal of the case.

6. This Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551, has considered the object of the Act and importance of time bound determination of the question of juvenility of the accused. This Court has held:

77. ... The said Act is not only a beneficent legislation, but also a remedial one. The Act aims at grant of care, protection and rehabilitation of a juvenile vis-'-vis the adult criminals. Having regard to Rule 4 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, it must also be borne in mind that the moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility were also one of the factors in defining a juvenile. The first objective, therefore, is the promotion of the well-being of the juvenile and the second objective to bring about the principle of proportionality whereby and where under the pro