Ghulam Abass vs State Of J&K And Others

Vinod Chatterji Koul, J

The petitioner has filed this criminal revision challenging the order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch

granting bail in favour of respondent No.4 herein.

2 The petitioner is the complainant of the case and has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the police has wrongly shown the

accused/respondent No.4 as a juvenile in order to give him undue benefit under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. According to the petitioner, the

accused/respondent No.4, at the time of commission of offence, was major and, therefore, he could not have been admitted to bail by giving him the

benefit under the said Act. According to the petitioner, the Trial Court ought to have conducted an enquiry with regard to the question of juvenility of

the accused and after having conducted the enquiry as to whether or not, the accused was a juvenile, should have passed the order in the application

for bail.

3 The order impugned would reveal that the trial Court had taken into consideration the chargesheet filed by the police in which the age of respondent

No.4/accused was shown below 18 years while relying upon the date of birth certificate issued by the Government Primary School Marhote.

According to the age certificate issued by the said school, the date of birth of the accused was 06.01.2000 and, as such, on the date of alleged

occurrence i.e 03.07.2017 he was below the age of 18 years. In view of the proof of birth produced, the trial Court had no option except to proceed

under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and while taking into consideration the age proof and the charge-sheet, the trial Court had rightly exercised

its jurisdiction and passed the order impugned. Thus, at the stage of presentation of challan in view of the school certificate produced and the report of

investigation, the trial Court was not required to conduct an enquiry regarding the age of the accused, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner.

4 The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court, before considering the bail application and giving the benefit of Juvenile justice

Act was required to conduct an inquiry, is without any merit.

5 No illegality can be found in the order impugned. There is, thus, no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.