CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Vinay Prasad Chauhan and Others vs State of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 23 February 1998 · Citation: (1998) 3 BLJR 1940

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.K. Sarin, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 · Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 — Section 18, 32
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 24354 of 1997
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 367 words

P.K. Sarin, J.—Heard.

2.

In the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that the Petitioner No. 2 Sanjay Chauhan, is aged about fourteen and a half years, which shows that the Petitioner No. 2 is claiming himself to be juvenile. However his age does not appear to have been determined by a Juvenile Court u/s 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act. If an accused is juvenile, the Juvenile Court has to first determine his age u/s 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') after holding due inquiry. If after such enquiry the accused is found to be juvenile then his bail matter will have to be considered u/s 18 of the Act and not u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3.

In the present case, the age of Petitioner No. 2 does not appear to have been determined by a Juvenile Court u/s 32 of the Act, so there is no option but to remit his case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, who shall be deemed to be exercising the powers of Juvenile Court in absence of creation of any Juvenile Court for that area by the State Government. His case is remitted accordingly to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paula, who shall in exercise of powers of Juvenile Court shall hold inquiry u/s 32 of the Act and shall determine the age of Petitioner No. 2. If on such determination of age petitioner No. 2 is found to be juvenile, his bail matter will be considered by the Juvenile Court u/s 18 of the Act. However, if Petitioner No. 2 is not found to be juvenile after determination of age u/s 32 of the Act, he shall be at liberty to move this Court again for consideration of his bail matter u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application insofar as it relates to Petitioner No. 2 stands disposed of accordingly.

4.

As regards Petitioners No. 1 and 3 viscera examination report is not in the case diary. Therefore, their bail matter shall be considered after receipt of the viscera examination report.

5.

Call for the viscera examination report and put up after the same is received.