Kunwar Pal Vs. State of Rajasthan

.....petitioner is prepared to surrender himself before the court also and is not absconding. reliance has been placed on babu v. state of rajasthan rle 1989 (2) 854.;in the circumstances, i feel it appropriate and in the interest of justice to convert the standing warrant, directed to have been issued vide orders dated 29.3.90 and 1.8.90, provided he furnishes a personate bond in the sum of rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount.;order accordingly. - 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. - 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount.i.s. israni, j.1. heard. the matter was heard for final disposal with consent of both the parties. it is submitted by mr. biri singh, learned counsel, that, initially, a case under section 376, ipc, was registered against the petitioner, regarding the incident, which took place on 7.4.85. fir was lodged on 9.4.85. thereafter, an offence was committed by the accused under section 354, ipc, and he was released on bail by the investigating officer. however, the eelier bail was cancelled and the offence was converted to have been committed under section 376/511, 354/451 and 323, ipc. it is submitted that the statement of proxecutrix mst. kamla was recorded on 1.8.90. the statement was read-over by the learned counsel. from this statement, it is evident that she only says that she suspects the petitioner to have committed rape, because she found the petitioner loitering out-side her house, few days earlier.2. it is further submitted by the learned counsel that on 1.8.90, after recording the above statement of the prosecutrix, the trial court has directed that standing warrant be issued against the petitioner. it is also stated that this order for issue of standing warrant was given on 23.9.89. however, warrant was not issued. it is pointed out that the petitioner is absconding.3. it is evident from the statment of mst. kamla that she has only suspicion against the petitioner. moreover, as stated by the learned counsel, the petitioner is prepared to surrender himself before the court also and is not absconding. reliance has been placed on babu v. state of rajasthan rlr 1989 (2) 854.4. in the circumstances, i feel it appropriate and in the interest of justice to convert the standing warrant, directed to have been issued vide orders dated 29.3.90 and 1.8.90, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount.5. the petition stands disposed of, as above.