The main legal point established in the judgment is that a juvenile accused should be dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the failure to do so renders any order unsustainable.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.10.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Jehanabad, whereby and whereunder the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant has been rejected in connection with Mahila P.S Case No. 55 of 2018, for the offence registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant submitted a written statement to the S.H.O., Mahila P.S. Jehanabad, on 21.10.2018, wherein he has alleged that the appellant committed rape upon his seven years old maternal grand-daughter in a deserted and lonely place.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been declared juvenile by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Jehanabad, vide order dated 19.02.2019 (Annexure-4 to the Memo of Appeal). After conducting inquiry, his age on the alleged date of occurrence has been assessed as 16 years and 8 months. It has been also submitted that the appellant is in custody since 22.10.2018.

4. From perusal of the aforesaid order dated 19.02.2019, it appears that on 31.01.2018, a petition on behalf of the accused having been filed before the learned court below contending that on the date of commission of the alleged occurrence, the accused had not completed eighteen years of age, thus he may be declared juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Whereupon, the learned court below itself conducted an inquiry and determined the age of the appellant to be 16 years and 8 months on the date of alleged occurrence, thus, declared him a juvenile and also held that the trial of the appellant will also be conducted by itself in capacity of Children’s Court.

5. The relevant part of the said order dated 19.02.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Jehanabad, is extracted hereunder:

^^vfHk;qDr vfHk"ksd dqekj dks dkjk esa ÁLrqr fd;k x;kA fnukad 31-10-2018 ds frfFk vafdr 2-11-2018 dks nkf[ky vkosnu dj mHk; i{k dh vksj ls ÁkFkZuk fd;k x;k fd vfHk;qDr vfHk"ksd dqekj dk Juvenile ds fcUnq ij tkap lk{; fd;k tk pqdk gS rFkk fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr dk vad Áek.k i= nkf[ky fd;k x;k ftlls Árhr gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDr cky fd'kksj gS vr% vfHk;qDr dks Juvenile ?kksf"kr fd;k tk;A Lis'ky ihŒihŒ fojks/k ugha djrs gSA vfHkys[k voyksdu fd;k x;kA okn 21-10-2018 dks ÁkFkfedh dh x;h gSA vfHk;qDr dks fnukad 31-10-2018 ds vkosnu 2-11-2018 dks nkf[ky fd;k x;k okn U/s. 376 I.P.C. and 4 POSCO ds ÁkFkfed vafdr esa t?kU; vijk/k gSA vfHk;qDr ds Juvenile ds fcUnq ij eka&firk dh lk{; djk;k x;k gS ij vfHk;qDr dk mez yxHkx 17 crk;k x;k gS rFkk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr ds vad Áek.k i= ds ewy Áfr nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS ftlesa vfHk;qDr dk mez 6-4-2002 vafdr gS ?kVuk dh frfFk 21-10-2018 gS ftlls Árhr gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDr dk mez yxHkx 16 o"kZ 8 ekg gS mDr fLFkfr esa vfHk;qDr dks Juvenile ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS pwafd mDr vijk/k dk fo'ks"k U;k;ky; ¼cky fd'kksj½ ;gha gS mDr fLFkfr esa vfHk;qDr dk okn fopkj.k blh U;k;ky; esa pysxkA ;FkklaHko ¼vLi"V½ dh Áfr Ánku djus dh d`ik djsaA**
gLrk{kj
¼vLi"V½

6. Thereafter, the appellant moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Jehanabad, for grant of bail, which was heard and rejected vide order dated 15.10.2019. Thereupon, the present appeal has been preferred for release of the appellant on bail during pendency of trial, setting aside the aforesaid order dated 15.10.2019.

7. At this stage, in the facts and circumstances stated above, before delving into the merits of the case for the purpose of considering bail of the appellant, this Court would primarily

like to consider the issues involved, incidentally, in this case, which are as under:

(i) Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Jehanabad, after determination of age of the appellant, thereupon, holding him ‘child in conflict with law’ was under statutory obligation to forward the appellant to the Juvenile Justice Board constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protectio