1. This is first application which has been preferred under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of applicant Satendra who is aged 17 years. He claims himself to be juvenile.

2. Case diary has been perused. Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.75/2014 registered at Police Station Mau, District Bhind for the offence punishable under sections 294, 302, 34 of IPC.

3. As per the prosecution case, incident occurred on 24.2.2014 between 11 a.m. to 12 noon when the work of maintenance of public road was going on at village Padaria and the same was opposed by Naval Sharma and Gurali Sharma by saying that the land was belonging to them. In the noon, Ashok was trying to stop them by saying that do not oppose. Thereafter, Ashok was beaten by Anand s/o Kalyan, Satendra, Bheekaram, Naval and Gurali on account of which Ashok fell down on the ground and died on the spot. FIR was lodged by Ramsharan Sharma and on that basis Crime No.75/2014 has been registered.

4. Anticipatory bail application No.66/2014 was preferred by Bheekaram and present applicant Satendra before the Sessions Court and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 14.3.2014.

5. It is submitted by Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, that as per the High School Marksheet-cum-Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal, date of birth of the applicant is 4.6.1996 and accordingly, on the date of incident applicant was below 18 years of age. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection Children) Act, 2000 (for brevity “the Act”), applicant has right to get benefit of anticipatory bail because he has falsely been implicated. It is also submitted by Shri Sharma, learned counsel, that as per the provisions of section 6(2) of the Act, the power conferred on the Board by or under this Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Session also. Further, it is argued that provisions of Act have overriding effect on the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it is not necessary for the applicant to appear before the Court personally. He may appear by filing such type of anticipatory bail application before the Court. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2007 Cri.LJ 3047 and Mohan, Applicant (in jail) v. State of Chhattisgarh, non applicant, reported in 2005 Cri.LJ 3271.

6. Per contra, it is submitted by Shri Awasthy, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Katare, learned counsel for the complainant, that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the anticipatory bail application specially for juvenile because in the Act provision of anticipatory bail application has not been co-added. The only provision made under the Act for the bail of a juvenile is in section 12 and according to that until and unless juvenile is arrested or detained or appears or brought before a Board, the application of such juvenile cannot be considered. Apart that, heinous offence has been committed by the applicant, therefore, he does not deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail and thus the application preferred by him should be dismissed.

7. It is also submitted on behalf of the State that as per the provisions of section 6(2) of the Act the powers conferred on the Board by or under this Act may also be exercised by the High Court and the Court of Session, but only in appeal, revision or otherwise. Otherwise means in proceedings filed under section 482 of CrPC or in writ petition filed under the Articles of Constitution but the same cannot be exercised in deciding the anticipatory bail applications because if it is so then directly or indirectly juvenile will be deprived of his legal right given to him under section 52 and 53 of the Act [appeals and revisions respectively] because if the matter is directly decided by the High Court against the juveni