- (1.) C. A. Rahim, J. Heard learned Coun sel Sri Raj Kumar Singh for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. It is contended that the revisionist was arrested in a petty of fence who is juvenile and that the provision of filing a charge-sheet within 90 days having not been considered the revisionist shall be released on bail.
(2.) THE learned A. G. A. has submitted that Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act does not permit a juvenile to be released on bail where he is likely to come in association with known criminals or exposing him to moral danger. THE allegation is that the revisionist was apprehended with 90 gram mes Charas. THE police report is that his elder brother was also earlier caught with illicit Charas. So the apprehension of the learned Magistrate, confirmed by the appel late court, seems to be genuine that if the revisionist is released on bail, he will come in contact with his elder brother who was also engaged in a similar trade. I also do not agree with the learned Counsel that pos sessing Charas is a petty offence. From the judgment of the Sessions Court dated 12-5-1997 it appears that the charge sheet was submitted on 10- 1-1997 and accordingly the provision of Section 167 (2), Cr. P. C. has no application. From the medical certificate An-nexure-1 of the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut, it appears that the revisionist was of 16 years of age on the date of the examina tion. From the annexures it does not appear to me that any inquiry under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act was conducted in this case not only for the purpose of con sidering the bail application but also for the purpose of determination of the jurisdiction of the trial court. I do not consider that there is any merit in this Revision-Petition and the same is dismissed. It is directed that the Juvenile Court shall start inquiry under Section 32 of the Juvenile Justice Act and determine the age of the revisionist forthwith. Revision dismissed. .;