These petitions have been filed to direct the respective Juvenile Justice Boards to accept the surrender of the petitioners and consider the bail applications on merits on the same day of their surrender in Crime Nos. 644 of 2015, 25 of 2016 and 56 of 2016 on the file of the respective respondent police.

2. Since a common question of law arises in all these petitions, they have been clubbed together for adjudication.

3. The petitioners in these cases are admittedly juveniles in conflict with law and they have been arrayed as accused for various offences which will be discussed when the individual cases are being dealt with.

4. It is uniformly contended by the respective counsel that, if a juvenile accused is arrested and produced before the Board, he is placed in the custody of an Observation Home till a report from the Probation Officer is obtained and this causes undue prejudice to the juvenile inasmuch as he is likely to come into contact with those involved in serious offences in the Observation Home, which will be detrimental to his interest. Therefore, the counsel pleaded that, on surrender of a juvenile before the Board, the Board should consider the bail application on the same day without insisting upon the report from the Probation Officer. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:

1. Minor Pradeesh Kumar and another vs. The Station House Officer, Cuddalore District, 2009 (3) MWN (Cr.) 40;

2. Karkuvel Mani, Minor vs. State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi District (Crl. O.P. (MD) No.8955 of 2014) decided on 08.05.2014;

3. S. Vasanth vs. State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Namakkal District (Crl. O.P. No. 11680 of 2015) decided on 05.05.2015;

4. Siva vs. State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi District, (Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 18988 of 2015) decided on 05.10.2015.

5. It may be necessary to state here that the order in Karkuvel Mani's case, referred to above, has been passed by me. Though I had granted the relief as prayed for in Karkuvel Mani's case, in retrospect I am of the opinion that the view taken by me requires reconsideration. After all, we become wiser day by day. The order passed by my brother Judge Justice S. Vaidyanathan in Crl.O.P.No.22361 of 2015, decided on 08.10.2015, taking a contrary view, has also been placed before me.

6. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, has been repealed by The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Act No.2 of 2016), which received the assent of the President of India and has come into force from 15.01.2016 vide Notification dated 12.01.2016, issued under Section 1(3) of the Act 2 of 2016. Section 111 of the Act 2 of 2016 states as follows:

“111. (1) The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the said Acts shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.”

7. In the light of the above, this Court should have to consider the bail plea of the petitioners as per the provisions of Section 12 of Act, 2 of 2016. It may be apposite to state here that Section 12 of the Old Act, which deals with the bail of juveniles is almost in-parimateria with Section 12 of Act 2 of 2016. Section 12 of Old Act and Section 12 of Act 2 of 2016 read as under:

“Section 12 -Bail of juvenile.— (Old Act)

(1) 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 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety 1[or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution of fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing th