1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.19 OF 2010 Macchindra S/o.Haribhau Pawar, Age-13 years, Occu-Student, R/o.Anvi, Tq.Badnapur, Dist. Jalna APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Smt.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.B.Patil, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 14/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court u/s.439, 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in connection with CR No.111/2009, registered in Nanal Peth Police Station, Parbhani. The offence is allegedly committed u/s. 302, 307, 326, 324 r/w. 34 of IPC. According to learned counsel for applicant, applicant is minor and in spite of it, he is detained behind bars for more than 5 months. 2. During the course of submissions, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the present applicant came to be arrested in 2 connection with said crime on 16/07/2009. It is further appeared and brought to the notice of this Court that the parents of the applicant have moved an application before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, which is numbered as MA No.7/2009. This application is moved to decide the fact that the applicant is minor and entitled for the benefit of The Juvenile Justice (Offenders) Act and entitled for bail. It further appears that subsequent to filing of the application, the applicant was sent for Ossification test. The report is received of that test of the Radiologist who has conducted the Ossification test, and according to him, the age of the applicant is somewhere about 17-18 years, as against this the school record produced before this Court shows that the age of the applicant is about 13 years. There is vast difference between the age of the applicant as recorded as per the school record and as per the opinion of the Radiologist. Certain documents were produced before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and to prove those documents, counsel for applicant before the Lower Court has prayed for issuance of summons. It appears from the copy of the Roznama annexed with the application that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate pleased to pass the order to issue the summons as prayed for, but the summons either were not served or returned unserved and hence the matter was prolonged. It appears that even though the application is moved on 05/08/2009, actual proceeding was commenced from 09/10/2009 and during this period, there is no progress in the matter of inquiry in the said application numbered as 7/2009. According to learned counsel for the applicant in this Court, if the 3 directions will be given to the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to conduct the inquiry within a stipulated period and after concluding the inquiry, if the counsel for applicant aggrieved, if the Chief Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the applicant is not minor, then that order can be challenged before the Appellate Court i.e. the Court of Sessions. But in absence of any finding to the effect whether the applicant is minor or not, no appeal can be preferred before the Appellate Authority. 3. Considering this peculiar situation, if the directions will be issued to the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to complete the proceeding in the matter of inquiry within a stipulated period, the purpose of the parties will be survived. In the premise, the application to be disposed of with a following directions : O R D E R 1. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is hereby directed to complete the inquiry within the period of one month after the report of service of summons as prayed for by the parents of the applicant will be received and the summons will be served on the witnesses to whom the applicant intend to examine. 2. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to issue and serve these summonses by court motion on depositing process fee by the counsel for applicant/parents of the applicant before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. 3. The applicant to deposit the process fee within a period of 1 week from the date of this order before the Court of Learned Chief 4 Judicial Magistrate, if not paid already. 4. If the process fee is already paid, and if not paid but paid within the period of one week, then the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to issue the summonses returnable within 1 week thereafter. After the summonses will be served within a period of one week, the Chief Judicial Magistrate then to conclude the inquiry within the period of 4 weeks thereafter. 5. Certified copy of this order is expedited. 6. Copy of this order, duly signed by the Shirastedar of this Court be provided to either parties at their request. 7. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.19-10