SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Pat) 256

PATNA HIGH COURT
Sadanand Mukherjee, J.
Amit Kumar Thakur @ Amit Ranjan Thakur
Versus
State Of Bihar
Cr. Misc. No. 51625 of 2006
Decided On : FEBRUARY 05, 2007

The determination of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act is based on the age of the accused at the time of the offence, and the amended provisions do not apply retrospectively for the purpose of bail.

Headnote:

Juvenile Justice Act - Bail Application - Sections 324, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, amended in 2006 - Sec. 20 - Sec. 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner seeks bail for offences under Sections 324, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, contending that he should be treated as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, amended in 2006, due to the age at the time of the offence.

Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the bail application, emphasizing that the petitioner was not a juvenile at the time of the offence and that the amended Act of 2006 does not apply to his case for the purpose of bail.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be considered a juvenile under the amended Juvenile Justice Act, 2006, and be granted bail based on the provisions of sec. 20 and sec. 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to be treated as a juvenile under the amended Act of 2006 for the purpose of bail, as the proceedings under the 1986 Act were not pending at the time of the 2001 Act's commencement.

Final Decision: The bail application was rejected, and the court directed the trial to be concluded without delay.

Judgment

1. Heard the parties.

2. This is an application for bail for the offences punishable under Sections- 324, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The prosecution case is that the petitioner inflicted dagger injury to the deceased Sarita Jha in presence of the informant, who also triad to save her sister. The informant was also assaulted by the petitioner with dagger, deceased Sarita Jha succumbed to the injuries.

3. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the alleged offence was committed on 24.3. 2000 when the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was in force, and as par provisions of the said Act the petitioner ceased to be a juvenile and as such his case was treated as a general one and his trial proceeded in the trial court, while trial proceeding Juvanile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 came into force on 1.4.2001, as amended in the year, 2006 which contemplaces that "Juvanile in conflict with law" means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and has not completed eighteen year of age as on the date of commission of such offence.

4. Presently, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amended Act, 2006 with effect from 22.8.2006 lays down as follows:

1. Short Tile, Extent (Commencement and application) (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the tine being in force, the provisions of this Act shall apply to all cases involving detention, prosecution penalty or sentence of imprisonment of juvenile in conflict with law under such other law,

5. On behalf of the petitioner it has also been contended that Section-20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 removes some misunderstanding regarding juvenile who ceased to be a juvenile before the commencement of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and lays down special provision in respect of pending cases which reads as follows:

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act all proceedings in respect of a Juvenile pending in any court in any area on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area shall be continued in that court as if this Act had not bean passed and if the Court finds that the Juvenile has committed an offence, it shall record such finding and instead of passing any sentence in respect of the juvenile, forward the juvenile to the Board and which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act and as if it had bean satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence.

Explanation:-

In all pending cases including trial, revision, appeal or any other criminal proceedings in respect of a juvenile in conflict with law, in any court, the determination of Juvenility of such a juvenile shall be in terms of Clause (1) of sec. 2, even if the juvenile cases to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if the said provisions had been in force for ell purpose and at all material times and when the alleged offence was committed.

6 It has been submitted that the maximum punishment given to a juvenile is three years, but since the petitioner has already been spent more than double of the maximum prescribed period in jail, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. With reference to the order of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26296 of 2005, whereunder a Medical Board was constituted and on computation of age, the age of the petitioner on 1.4.2001, when the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was made enforcible the petitioner was below 18 years, i.e, being 17 years 8 months and 9 days. It has been submitted that the case of the petitioner may be considered under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) amended Act, 2006 and sec. 20, as per "Explanation" above, shall be applicable for determination his juvenility, for all intent and purposes under the aforesaid Act and t



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top