Darshan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - state of rajasthan, 1979 raj cri c 158, wherein this court has taken the view that conditions like the one imposed by the trial court in the present case, cannot be a condition relevant for the purpose of granting bail under the code of criminal procedure.orderrajesh balia , j.1. heard.2. learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that after passing the order for interim bail under section 438, cr.p.c., the addl. district and sessions judge, hanumangarh has further imposed a condition that he should deposit rs. 25,000/- in the gurdwara account or should furnish a bank guarantee for payment of amount of rs. 25,000/-, alleged to have been embezzled by him in his capacity of manager/granthi of the gurdwara, failing which the interim order granted under section 438, cr.p.c. shall stand revoked. imposition of this condition, according to learned counsel, is not warranted under the provisions of section 438, cr.p.c. as it amounts to determination of civil dispute between the parties and not related to purpose for imposing conditions while granting bail. it may be noticed that the case against the petitioner-accused is that he has embezzled rs. 25,000/- from accounts of the gurdwara. in support of his contention, learned counsel relied on bhanwarlal v. state of rajasthan, 1979 raj cri c 158, wherein this court has taken the view that conditions like the one imposed by the trial court in the present case, cannot be a condition relevant for the purpose of granting bail under the code of criminal procedure. i am in respectful agreement.3. the application of the petitioner is allowed. the condition for deposit of rs. 25,000/- in the account of gurdwara or to furnish a bank guarantee for payment of the same, imposed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 4-1-1993, is unsustainable. consequently, the petition is allowed and the order passed by the addl. sessions judge no. 1, hanumangarh camp suratgarh, dated 4-1-1993, passed in sessions case no. 400/92 state v. darshan singh, is set aside.