DEEPAK MAHESHWARI,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner - Bhuri Bai, who is presently said to be confined in Nari Niketan, Kota.
(2.) This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner with the prayer to quash and set aside the orders impugned dated 3rd January, 2017 and 10th January, 2017 passed by learned Juvenile Board, Jhalawar and learned Appellate Court whereby, the application filed under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act was rejected by them respectively.
(3.) Main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC is pending against the petitioner before the Juvenile Board, Jhalawar. On the date of incident, i.e., 25th December, 1999, the petitioner was of the age of 13 years though no specific document has been produced regarding exact date of birth but in the order dated 16th September, 2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manoharthana, District Jhalawar, she has been treated to be juvenile and has been directed to sent to Juvenile Board, Jhalawar. Since almost 17 years have passed since the incident took place, now the anticipated age of the petitioner comes out to be of the 30 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has attained the age of majority, she cannot be detained in Nari Niketan or Remand Home; and she is required to be released from Nari Niketan. In support of the contentions, he has referred to the following judgments:- (I) Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P. reported in 1989 AIR (SC) 1329 ; (II) Pooran v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2007 (2) RLW 1311 ; (III) Jayendra v. State of U.P. reported in 1982 AIR (SC) 685 ; and, (IV) Rashid @ Rasshid @ Rashidiya v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013 (1) W.L.N. 455. ;