criminal procedure code - bail--accused did not appear due to bonafide mistake of advocate--fact corroborated by affidavit of advocate--held, court is inclined to grant bail.;due to bonafide mistake of the advocate the petitioner did not appear on 2nd may, 1992. this fact is duly corroborated by the affidavit of shri suresh chandra shrimalee, advocate and his diary of cases.;i feel inclined to allow this bail application.;bail granted - 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. - ten thousand only) and furnishes one sound surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned addl.rajendra saxena, j.1. mr. kumbhat has filed an affidavit of shii suresh chandra shrimalee, advocate, bhllwara and photo-stat copies of his diary of cases dated 02.04.92, wherein the next date in sessions case 'state v gopal lal vaishnav' has been written as 09.05.92. the petitioner was on bail during the trial in this case but he remained absent on 02.05.92 and his bail bonds were forfeited and warrants of arrest was ordered to be issued. however, he surrendered before the court on 14th may, 1992 and his bail petition was dismissed by the learned addl. sessions judge, bhilwara.2. mr. suresh kumbhat submits that due to bonafide mistake of the advocate the petitioner did not appear on 2nd may, 1992. this fact is duly corroborated by the affidavit of shri suresh chandra shrimalee, advocate and his diary of cases.3. hence, keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, i feel inclined to allow this bail application and order that the petitioner gopal lal be released on bail provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of rs. 10,000/- (rs. ten thousand only) and furnishes one sound surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned addl. sessions judge, bhilwara for his regular attendance before him on each and every date of hearing till the completion of the trial.