JUDGMENT

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioner, in the present case, is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 4th December, 2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2019 by which the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge -cum-Children’s Court, Gopalganj has refused to interfere with the order of the Juvenile Justice Board rejecting the application of the petitioner to declare him a juvenile.

3. The brief facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner is an accused in Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 24/2019 registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code against the unknown persons. In course of investigation, it has been found that the kidnapped boy was murdered. The petitioner was apprehended in the said case, police obtained his confessional statement which led to recovery of certain incriminating articles by police. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected up to this court in Cr. Misc. No. 3468/2021 vide order dated 09.04.2021.

4. At this stage it appears that when the records were sent to the Children’s Court, it appears that the petitioner raised a plea of juvenility. On his behalf a school leaving certificate was filed with an application showing his date of birth as 01.03.2003. The medical examination of the petitioner was also conducted on his own request, he was found aged between 19 – 20 years. The plea of juvenility was, thus, rejected. He preferred statutory appeal before the Children’s Court which has also been rejected. At the appellate stage, it appears that the petitioner brought on record his matriculation certificate in which his date of birth is mentioned as 17.02.2001. A copy of the matriculation certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna is on the record and the same is not disputed. The learned appellate court though mentioned this fact that the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded in the matriculation certificate as 17.02.2001, but found that the petitioner had himself produced school leaving certificate showing his date of birth as 01.03.2003 and on that basis his Aadhar Card was prepared, therefore refused to consider the matriculation certificate as the basis for declaration of juvenility.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matriculation certificate of the petitioner is that of the year 2017 which is much prior to the alleged date of occurrence. It is submitted that because of the ill-advise rendered to the father and pairvikar of the petitioner the said matriculation certificate was not brought on the record and a wrong plea was taken on behalf of the petitioner that his date of birth is 01.03.2003.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has gone to the extent of arguing that even if the school leaving certificate was fabricated to confer the bonafide of juvenility to the petitioner, no consent of the petitioner in this regard may be assumed because admittedly he was minor and he was very much eligible to be declared a juvenile if his matriculation certificate would have been produced by his guardian. It is submitted that in this case a matriculation certificate has not been challenged, therefore in terms of the scheme of section 94 of the Act of 2015, the application for juvenility should have been considered accepting the matriculation certificate of the petitioner.

7. It is further submitted that the Act of 2015 is a piece of beneficial legislation for the children in conflict with law and such benefit has been given with with certain purpose and one of them is to give an opportunity to a juvenile to reform himself and get connected with the mainstream of the society.

8. Learned counsel submits that it is for this reason that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lalu Kumar and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2019 (4) PLJR 833; held that the classification of offences in bailable and non-bail