Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. The question for consideration in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is whether a juvenile within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (the Act in short), lodged in the Observation Home on ceasing to be juvenile during the pendency of the enquiry under the Act can be shifted to the ordinary jail. 2. The short fact giving rise to this application are as follows: The petitioners are accused of having committed the offence under Sec. 302/34, Indian Penal Code vide Barahat P S Case No. 250 of 1990. The petitioners after arrest were remanded to custody. The Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur by his order, dated 2-8-91 in Cr. Rev. No. 276 of 1991, after taking opinion of the Medical Board and on consideration of the materials on record, held that the petitioners were below 16 years of age at the time of the alleged occurrence and, accordingly directed that the petitioners be kept in the Observation Home during enquiry under the Act. He also directed that the trial be split up so that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur specially empowered to try the cases under the Act may try the petitioners separately. It is said that the informant of the case challenged the order of the Sessions Judge in Cr. Misc. No. 9741 of 1991 in this Court which was rejected on 10-9-1991 During the pendency of the enquiry, it is said, the Sessions Judge inspected the observation home on 29-5-1993 and issued an administrative order directing the Superintendent of the Home to shift five under-trial prisoners including the petitioners to different jails on the ground that they have already crossed the age limit of 16 years and are no longer juveniles. The validity of the said order marked Annexure -1 to this application has been challenged. 3. It is not necessary to set out the objects of the Act or to refer to its provisions in details. Reference may only be made to a decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Bhagwan V/s. State of Bihar. In order to make this order complete and self-contained, however, I may only point out that in terms of Sec. 2 (h) Juvenile means a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years or a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years. In order to make this order complete and self-contained, however, I may only point out that in terms of Sec. 2 (h) Juvenile means a boy who has not attained the age of 16 years or a girl who has not attained the age of 18 years. The Act provides for establishment/recognition of juvenile homes, special homes observation homes and after care organisations in respect of different categories of juveniles. Such juveniles against whom any enquiry under the Act is pending are to be lodged in the observation homes established and maintained by the State Government under Sec. 11. That is how the petitioners were kept in the observation home of Bhagalpur as per order of the Sessions Judge. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have crossed the age limit of 16 years and have, thus, ceased to be juveniles. So far as the question of their status quo juvenile is concerned, Sec. 3 of the Act clearly and unmistakably provides that if enquiry has been initiated against a juvenile and during course of such enquiry he ceases to be juvenile, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, the enquiry may be continued and orders may be made in respect of such person as if such person had continued to be a juvenile. In Krishna Bhagwan (supra), the Full Bench held as follows: "Different sections put a strict bar on the child/juvenile being sent to jail custody either before an enquiry or after the conclusion of the enquiry in respect of the offence alleged or proved to have been committed. This benefit has to be extended not only to an accused who is a child/juvenile at the time of the commencement of the enquiry and has continued as such till the conclusion of the enquiry, but even to an accused who has ceased to be a child/juvenile during the pendency of the enquiry." The Court was considering the question as to the nature of the enquiry and. order to be passed therein in respect of the persons who, though juvenile on the date of the alleged offence, has ceased to be so during pendency of the enquiry. Their Lordships were not called upon to consider the question as to where they are to be lodged after they cease to be juveniles during pendency of the enquiry. order to be passed therein in respect of the persons who, though juvenile on the date of the alleged offence, has ceased to be so during pendency of the enquiry. Their Lordships were not called upon to consider the question as to where they are to be lodged after they cease to be juveniles during pendency of the enquiry. In my opinion, if the status of the person qua juvenile for the purpose of enquiry remains the same notwithstanding the fact that he has ceased to be juvenile during the pendency of enquiry, it logically follows that for the purpose of his incarceration also he would continue to enjoy the same status and, therefore, he cannot be kept in ordinary jail even after he ceases to be juvenile. 5. In Sheela Barse V/s. Union of India, Justice Bhagwati in his usual inimicable style stated "If a child is a national asset, it is the duty of the State to look after the child with a view to ensuring full development of its personality. That is why all the statutes dealing with children provide that a child shall not be kept in jail. Even apart from this statutory prescription, it is elementary that a jail is hardly a place where a child should be kept. There can be no doubt that incarceration in jail would have the effect of dwarfing the development of the child exposing him to baneful influences, coarsening his conscience and alien tine him from the society. It is a matter of regret that despite statutory provisions and frequent exhortations by social scientists there are still large number of children in different jails in the country as is now evident from the reports of the survey made by, the District Judges pursuant to our order, dated 15th April, 1986. Even where children arc accused of offences, they must not be kept in jails. It is no answer on the part of the State to say that it has not got enough number of remand homes or observation homes or other places where children can be kept and that is why they are lodged in jails. Even where children arc accused of offences, they must not be kept in jails. It is no answer on the part of the State to say that it has not got enough number of remand homes or observation homes or other places where children can be kept and that is why they are lodged in jails. It is also no answer on the part of the State to verge that the ward in the jail where the children are kept in separately from the ward in which the other prisoners are detained., It is the atmosphere of the jail which has a highly injurious effect on the mind of the child, estranging him from the society and breeding in him aversion bordering on hatred against a system which keeps him in jail. We would, therefore, like once again to impress upon the State Government that they must set up necessary remand homes where children accused of an offence can be lodged pending investigation and trial. On no account should the children be kept in jail and if a State Government has not got sufficient accommodation in its remand homes or observation homes, the children should be released on bail instead of being subjected to incarceration in jail." There is no controversy or doubt that the child/juvenile has to be kept in remand homes or observation homes and not in jail pending trial/enquiry. But whether they should be allowed to remain in the company of under sixteen after they cease to be juveniles? If the company of the criminals kept in ordinary jail can have deleterious effect on their mental hygiene, it cannot be denied that their continued association with persons of still tender age, i.e. below 16 years living in the observation home may not be in the interest of those younger ones. The investigation and enquiry in respect of the alleged offence may take years and by that time a person who was juvenile on the date of occurrence and incarceration may well grow up into a mature man, It would not be in public interest to allow to remain under the very same roof where persons 16 below years of age live. In my opinion, the State Government would be well-advised to make arrangements so that such persons should be kept not only away from the influence of the ordinary criminals but at the same time; also at a distance from under-sixteen group of persons. Provisions may be made in the same observation home or at another place. Such an arrangement would not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and/or the judgments of the apex Court and of this Court on the point. 6 So far as the instant case is concerned, it is an admitted position that by an administrative order the Sessions Judge has directed the petitioners and three others to be removed to the Central Jail, Bhagalpur and District Jail, Banka. The direction of the kind, for the reasons stated above, cannot be sustained. The impugned order, dated 29-5-1993 contained in Annexure 1 of this application is accordingly, quashed. This application is, thus, allowed. 7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Jail Department, Government of Bihar for necessary action in the light of observations made in Paragraph 5 above. N.K.Sinha, J. 8 I agree.