VINOD PRASAD,J. - (1.) TRANSFER Application (Criminal) No.362 of 2011 Ved Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and another, Transfer Application (Criminal) No.363 of 2011 Guddu Bind Vs. State of U.P. and another, Transfer Application (Criminal) No.364 of 2011 Nachake @ Ajeet Vs. State of U.P. and another, Transfer Application (Criminal) No.365 of 2011 Ghukarhu @ Subhash Vs. State of U.P. and another, are clubbed together and are being decided by this Court by common order.
(2.) HEARD Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri N.D. Rai, learned AGA in opposition. Common factors which runs through all the four transfer applications are that applicants herein in all transfer applications are juvenile and they are wanted in different crime number for different offence. They applied for bail before Juvenile Justice Board but their bail prayers were rejected by Juvenile Justice Board and hence all the applicants preferred various appeal under Section 52 of Juvenile Justice Act before Sessions Judge, Chandauli. However, court of Sessions Judge, Chandauli is vacant and, therefore, matter has been transferred to In-charge Sessions Judge/Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Chandauli.
(3.) IT is submitted by the applicants' counsel that although applicants are juvenile and preferred appeal for being released on bail, In-charge Sessions Judge is not deciding their appeals and they are under detention. Juvenile Justice Act is a beneficial legislation for the benefit of juveniles. If they have preferred appeals for being released on bail, its expeditious disposal is not only a desirable necessity but also is mandate contained under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as expeditious disposal of trial of an accused in itself imbibes expeditious disposal of juvenile proceedings where juveniles are under detention.;