IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2010 Arjun Singh Rai (In jail) Through his natural guardian Mehar Singh, S/o Shri Ghotunu R/o Udhalpalta, Tehsil Chakrauta District Dehradun. …………..…Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand. ……….Respondent. Shri R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the revisionist. Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. with Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision, is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.03.2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Vth Fast Track Court, Dehradun, in criminal appeal No. 10 of 2010, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal against the order dated 08.12.2009, passed by Juvenile Board, Dehradun. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged with P.S. Vikas Nagar, on 31.12.2008, which was registered as crime No. 209 of 2008, relating to offences punishable under Section 302/120B/34 I.P.C. 2 against the unknown persons. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against four persons namely Phool Singh, Irfan, Rizwan and Arjun Singh. It appears that while said charge-sheet was pending with the Magistrate, before the committal, the accused Arjun Singh (present revisionist), moved an application before the Juvenile Board, to declare him juvenile. Meanwhile, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, for trial. Thereafter, on 19.06.2009, Juvenile Board, declared revisionist Arjun Singh, Juvenile (copy of said order is annexed as annexure-3 to the affidavit, filed with this revision). It appears that revisionist moved bail application before the Juvenile Board, which was rejected by the Board, vide its order dated 08.12.2009 (copy annexure-7 to the revision). Against said order, the revisionist preferred criminal appeal No. 10 of 2010, which was decided by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court Vth, Dehradun, vide impugned order dated 12.03.2010, dismissing the appeal. Hence this revision. 4. Perusal of the order dated 08.12.2009, shows that the bail application has been rejected by Juvenile Board on the ground that the custody of the juvenile is not with the Juvenile Board, and the accused is in District Jail, Dehradun, under order of remand, issued by the Sessions Judge, where the case was committed for trial. The appellate court while affirming the said order, observed that 3 after the case had been committed to the Court of Sessions, for trial, the Juvenile Board should not have declared the revisionist juvenile. As such, the rejection by said Board of the bail application, was not required to be interfered with. 5. Had the application for declaring the juvenile not moved before the committal of the case, what has been observed by the lower appellate court could have been accepted. Perusal of the copy of application for declaring juvenile, shows that it was moved on 15.01.2009. It is argued that the case was committed only on 04.04.2009, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Court of Sessions. As such, in the opinion of this Court, the Juvenile Board, has committed no error of law in passing the order on the application, moved before the committal of the case. And the Juvenile Board should have no difficulty in disposing of the bail application, moved on behalf of the revisionist. In view of Section 7A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, application for declaring juvenility can be moved in the court before whom the trial is pending. The revisionist could have moved the bail application, before the Sessions Judge, only after committal of the case. As such, the Juvenile Board, has committed no error of law in entertaining the application prior to said date. 4 6. In the above circumstances, the proper approach on the part of the trial court (Sessions Judge, Dehradun), where the Sessions Trial No. 79 of 2009, is pending is that it should separate the trial of the juvenile from the other accused, and transmit the same to the juvenile board for further trial. As far as, the Juvenile Justice Board is concerned, it has power to hear and dispose of the bail application of the juvenile under the aforesaid Act, in accordance with law. Merely for the reason that the revisionist is lodged in District Jail, does not bar the Board from exercising powers under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. It is pertinent to mention here that the order declaring the revisionist juvenile has not been challenged and appears to have attained finality. 7. For the reasons, as discussed above, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.03.2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court Vth, Dehradun, in criminal appeal No. 10 of 2010, is set aside. The Juvenile Board is directed to decide the bail application of the revisionist in accordance with law. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:08.04.2010 Sweta 5