H.R.PANWAR, J. - (1.) THE instant criminal revision petition under Section 53 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, "the Act" hereinafter) read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") is directed against the order dated 19.07.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Parbatsar (for short, "the Appellate Court") in Criminal Misc. (Bail) Application No. 104/2005 filed by the petitioner under Section 52 of the Act, read with -Section 439 of the Code, whereby the Appellate Court dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioner through his guardian. Hence, this criminal revision petition.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant criminal revision are that petitioner Udaibhan Singh alias Bablu Singh moved before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar, before whom the petitioner was produced by the police in a criminal case arising out the FIR No. 137/2004, Police Station Pilwa, District Nagaur, for determination of his age under Section 49 of the Act as the petitioner claimed himself to be below 18 years of age on the relevant date of the occurrence. It appears from the order dated 10.05.2005 that by the order dated 12.04.2005 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 948/2005, this Court directed the Magistrate to conduct and complete the inquiry regarding the age of the petitioner within one month and submit the report. In compliance of the order dated 12.04.2005, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar conducted the inquiry and by the order dated 10.05.2005 determined the age of the petitioner and held him to be juvenile on the ground that on 18.11.2004, the alleged date of the occurrence, the petitioner had not attained the age of 18 years. Thus, the competent Court has determined the age of the petitioner and held him to be juvenile as defined under Sub -clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Perused the order impugned and also the order dated 10.05.2005 whereby the competent Court has determined the age of the petitioner and held him to be juvenile.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Section 12 of the Act, the petitioner may be released on bail as nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to show that the release of the petitioner is likely, to bring him into the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Learned Public -Prosecutor has supported the impugned order.;