Munna Muni Khan 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. orderrajendra saxena, j.1. mr. khan has submitted that as many as 11 (eleven) co-accused persons of the alleged incident faced trial in sessions case no. 7/ 91 and that the learned addl. sessions judge no. 1, jodhpur by his judgment dated 30-5-92 has acquitted them for the offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 436 read with 149 and 336, ipc. he has further submitted that the petitioner did not know about this case and that now the police wants to arrest him.2. on the other hand, the learned public prosecutor has opposed this bail petition and submitted that the petitioner after the incident which took place on 26-10-90 absconded and as such a challan was also filed against him under section 299, cr.p.c. according to him, serious allegations are being levelled against the petitioner and therefore, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.3. i have considered the rival submissions. in my considered opinion, the acquittal of co-accused persons in a separate trial does not entitle an absconding accused to be released on anticipatory bail. accordingly this bail petition stands dismissed. the petitioner should surrender before the learned trial judge and submit his bail petition, which will be decided by the learned trial judge in accordance with law.