IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.6187/2010 Shiv Singh @ Shiva Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : 22/07/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Harendra Singh for accused petitioner Mr. Amit Poonia,Public Prosecutor for the State ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me. Contention of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that petitioner has been wrongly denied the benefit of bail, even though he was juvenile on the date of incident. When the petitioner applied before the Principal Magistrate (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Juvenile Justice Board for determination of his status as juvenile, he was held to be juvenile on the basis of the certificate issued by the school, which he first attended. Learned counsel has referred to the certificates of Vth Standard and VIIIth standard issued by the concerned Board and in both these certificates, date of the petitioner has been recorded as 5th November, 1992. Chief Judicial Magistrate held inquiry and on completion of inquiry he submitted his report holding the petitioner to be juvenile on the basis of the Certificates referred to above. Learned District Judge discarded those certificates, observing that these certificates do not fall within the purview of Rule 12(3)(a) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 framed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and, therefore, age of the petitioner will have to be determined by other modes prescribed under sub-rule 2, 3 and 4 of Rule 12 of the Rules. Relying upon the judgment of this Court delivered in Surendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (2008(4) WLC 443), learned counsel for the petitioner argued that till other rules are framed by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 68 of the Act, Rule 12 of the Rules would prevail and in terms of sub-rule (3) whereof, in the absence of Matriculation certificate or equivalent certificate, the certificate issued by the School first attended shall have to be given utmost credence. Learned District Judge has, therefore, erred in law in not accepting the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was submitted after due inquiry and thus he was not justified in declining the benefit of bail to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications. Considering the rival submissions and without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case but taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail during trial. Resultantly, the bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Shiv Singh @ Shiva S/O Shri Munni Lal shall be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 31/2010 of P.S. Roopbas, district Bharatpur, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till conclusion of the trial. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. Thanvi