Prince Kumar vs State of U.P.

B.K. Rathi, J.—The revisionist moved an application for bail before the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Ghazipur, which have been rejected. The application was pressed mainly on the ground that the revisionist is a juvenile. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of bail, the present revision has been preferred.

I have heard Sri Abhai Saxena, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. regarding the maintainability of the revision.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist has referred to Section 7 (3) and Section 38 of Juvenile Justice Act and argued that the revisionist is juvenile and therefore, he is entitled to bail u/s 18 of the Act. The following authorities have been referred:

Naseem v. State of U.P. (XXXII) 1995 ACC 219.

Phool Chand v. State of Rajasthan 1998 (3) CCR 93.

Jaskaran Singh v. State of Punjab 1998 (4) CCR 572.

Ranjeet v.II Ird Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar and Ors. (XXXVII) 1998 ACC 493.

Harish Chandra v. State of U.P. (XXIX) 1992 ACC 112.

Rais v. State of Uttar Pradesh (28) 1991 ACC 484.

Bijoe Emmanuel and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others,

Sheo Mangal and Anr. v. State of U.P. 1990 UPCR 326.

The argument of the learned Counsel is totally misconceived. The revisionist did not move any application that he may be declared juvenile. The revisionist has still not been declared as juvenile by Juvenile Judge or by the trial court. The authorities referred to above apply to the case where the accused was already declared juvenile.

The revisionist has misjoined the two issues that he is juvenile and whether he is entitled to bail as juvenile. Unless he is declared as juvenile, the bail can not be granted in this revision. The revisionist may move proper application for bail u/s 439, Cr. P.C. before this Court. The revision against the order rejecting the application for bail is not maintainable as has been held to the case of Bhola v. State 1997 CriLJ 718, and other cases.

The revision is accordingly dismissed.