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