Babloo vs State of U.P.

C.A. Rahim, J.—Heard learned Counsel Sri Raj Kumar Singh for the revisionist and the learned A. G.A. It is contended that the revisionist was arrested in a petty offence, who is Juvenile and that the provision of filing a charge-sheet within 90 days having not been considered, the revisionist shall be released on bail.

The learned A.G.A. has submitted that Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act does not permit a juvenile to be released on bail where he is likely to come in association with known criminals or exposing him to moral danger. The allegation is that the revisionist was apprehended with 90 grammes charas. The police report is that his elder brother was also earlier caught with illicit charas. So the apprehension of the learned Magistrate, confirmed by the appellate court, seems to be genuine that if the revisionist is released on bail, he will come in contact with his elder brother who was also engaged in a similar trade. I also do not agree with the learned Counsel that possessing charas is a petty offence. From the judgment of the Sessions Court dated 12.5.1997, it appears that the charge-sheet was submitted on 10.1.1997 and accordingly, the provision of Section 167(2), Code of Criminal Procedure has no application.

From the medical certificate Annexure 1 of the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut, it appears that the revisionist was of 16 years of age on the date of the examination. From the annexures, it does not appear to me that any inquiry u/s 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act was conducted in this case not only also for the purpose of determination of the Jurisdiction of the trial court.

I do not consider that there is any merit in this revision-petition and the same is dismissed. It is directed that the Juvenile Court shall start inquiry u/s 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act and determine the age of the revisionist forthwith.