1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Mr. Biri Singh, learned Counsel for the accused appellant submits that accused was below 18 years of age at the time of commission of offence and now he is in Central Jail, Bharatpur, therefore, he is entitled for bail being juvenile and now he crossed the age of 18 years.

3. He drew our attention to Sections 12, 16 and 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter, referred as "the Act, 2000"). He also brought to our notice the decision of this Court in case of Bajrang Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (3) RCC 1616 , and the decisions of the Apex Court in case of Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, 1984 (Supp.) SCC 228 ; Jayendra and Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 SCC (Cri.) 809 ; Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P., 1989 (3) SCC 1 ; and Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P., 1995 SCC (Cri.) 395 .

4. The facts are not in dispute that accused applicant was below 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence.

5. Clause (k) of Sub-section (2) of the Act, 2000 provides the definition of "juvenile". "Juvenile" or "child" means a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age.

6. Admittedly the accused applicant was below 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence. Section 12 of the Act, 2000 provides that when any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or exposed him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

7. No material is there on record to support that the conditions referred above in Section 12 which disentitle the accused applicant from granting bail is available against this accused.

8. The provisions of Section 16 of the Act, 2000 provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, no juvenile in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment, or committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default of furnishing surety.

9. The provisions of Section 20 further provide that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, all proceedings in respect of 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 been 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 which shall pass orders in respect of that juvenile in accordance with the provisions of this Act as it had been satisfied on inquiry under this Act that a juvenile has committed the offence.

10. There is no dispute that the sentence has not been passed by the Board but by the Sessions Court.

11. In case of Jayendra and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), in para 3, Their Lordships observed as under :

"No Court shall sentence a child to imprisonment for life or to any term of imprisonment. Section 29 provides, insofar as it is material, that if a child is found to have committed an offence punishable with imprisonment, the Court may order him to be sent to an approved school for such period of stay as will not exceed the attainment by the child of the age of 18 years. In the normal course, we would have directed that the appellant Jayendra should be sent to an approved school but in view of the fact that he is now nearly 23 years of age, we cannot do so."

12. As the accused at the time of commission of offence was below 16