VERMA, J. - (1.) ALL the three above bail applications have been moved under Section 438 Cr. P. C. in FIR No. 335/2000 police station Shivajipark, Alwar where the accused are being tried of the offence under Secs. 147, 148, 149, 302, 364 IPC and Section 3 of SC/st Act.
(2.) AS per the FIR on 16. 11. 2000, a report was made at the Police Station by one Ram Kishan that the accused Sachin Meena, Chetan Meena, Pankaj, Sajan, Bheru, Bunty, Imam and his companions armed with Sword, druggers and hockey sticks came to their house and took away his son Dharamveer with the intention of murdering him. Dharamveer had tried to save himself but he was surrounded and killed. Charge-sheet has since been submitted. There are many other accused in the case, some of them have obtained regular bail under Sec. 439 Cr. P. C. after their having been arrested, but the present petitioners are praying that they should not be arrested and be enlarged to anticipatory bail. Notice was issued to the P. P. , case diary was produced. According to the parties even the challan has been put up before the Court. Accused persons had moved different bail applications in the month of June 2001. The court had issued notices, arrest was stayed by an interim order. As per the allegations, it was a day light cruel murder of the young Dharamveer with Swords, draggers and hockey sticks. Even though the incident is said to be of November 2000, but unfortunately the police was not able to arrest the accused persons immediately thereafter. It was after about 8 months that the accused persons had filed the present applications for anticipatory bail when their applications were rejected from the trial court.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner Sachin submits that Sachin was minor at the time of committing of alleged crime, his date of birth being 6. 7. 1984 i. e. on the date when the crime is said to have been committed he was of 16 years plus, therefore, the counsel submits that under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, such an accused should not be arrested and if arrested he is entitled to protection under the Act. Section 12 of the Act prescribes that when any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is further provided in sub-section (2) of Section 12 that when such a person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. Under sub-section (3) of Section 12 when such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry. The procedure has been prescribed by the Board. Counsel for the petitioner Sachin also invites attention towards Section 18 of the said Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Das vs. State of Bihar (1), wherein it has been held that crucial date for determining the question whether a person is juvenile is the date when he is brought before the competent authority and not the date of commission of offence. ;