Rishiraj @ Dibalu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Revision No.213 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Rishiraj @ Dibalu, S/o Satyendra Raj, Resident of- Sono, P.S.- Sono, District- Jamui.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar For the State : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasiya For the Informant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-03-2017 Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. Also heard learned Counsel for the informant This revision application has been filed under Section 102 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, against an order, dated 06.02.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions judge I, Jamui, whereby he has rejected regular bail application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed to be a juvenile and his age determination enquiry is said to be still pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Jamui. However, the order, which is impugned in the present proceeding, has apparently been passed under

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.213 of 2017 (3) dt.10-03-2017 2/3 provisions of Section 439/440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and not under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Section Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, empowers the High Court to exercise revisional power, which reads thus:- "102. The High Court may, at any time, either on its own motion or on an application received in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any Committee or Board or Children's Court, or Court has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit:

Provided that the High Court shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard."

Since the order, which has been passed, is not an order under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, in my view this revision application cannot be maintained and is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

The petitioner shall be at liberty to file

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.213 of 2017 (3) dt.10-03-2017 3/3 appropriate application/petition under relevant provisions of law for his release on bail.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √