P. K. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD. Petitioner is the accused in G. R. Case No. 31 of 1998 corresponding to Paralakhemundi, P. S. Case No. 17 of 1998 for the offence alleged under section 376, I. P. C. After arrest he applied for bail and claimed to be a juvenile delinquent. Vide order dated 13-2-1998 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 124 of 1998 learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer on the ground that even if educational certificate shows that the petitioner was born in January, 1983, but according to prosecution, he is 18 years old and this is not the stage to decide the genuineness of the documents and to determine the exact age of the petitioner. It was further held that petitioner is a college going boy and his family is rich and influential, so his release may not be in the best interest of the investigation and trial. However, he directed that petitioner be medically examined and if he is found to be a juvenile delinquent then he may be shifted to Observation Home after obtaining permission of the court. Needless to say that learned Sessions Judge did not properly appreciate the fact and the law and passed an erroneous order. ( 2 ) LEARNED Addi. Standing Counsel also argued that bail should be refused on the ground that petitioners release on bail would defeat the ends of justice. In that connection, he relied upon the case of Bechan v. State of U. P. That decision is of no help to support the contention of the State inasmuch as in that case it was found that Bechan was not a juvenile and therefore Allahabad High Court refused to giant him the benefit of section 18 of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (in short, the Act ). Except borrowing the language from section 18 of the Act, learned Addi. Standing Counsel did not state how release of the petitioner shall defeat ends of justice. No factual supplementation was done in that respect. ( 3 ) IN the case of Deoki Nandan Dayma v. State of U. P. and another, Apex Court in relation to determination of the age of a person to decide if he is a juvenile has held that entry in the School Register as to the date of birth of a student is admissible in evidence. In the case of Bhola Bhagat etc. In the case of Bhola Bhagat etc. v. State of Bihar. Apex Court has held that when a plea is raised on behalf of the accused that he is a child i. e. , a juvenile delinquent and if the court entertains any doubt about the age as claimed by the accused, it becomes obligatory for the court to hold an enquiry for determination of the age of the accused. It was observed that: Keeping in view the beneficial nature of the socially oriented legislation, it is an obligation of the court where such a plea is raised to examine that plea with care and it cannot fold its hands and without returning a positive finding regarding that plea, deny the benefit of the provisions of an accused. The court must hold an enquiry and return a finding regarding the age, one way of the other. We expect the High Court and subordinate courts to deal with such cases with more sensitivity, as otherwise the object of the Acts would be frustrated and the effort of the Legislature to reform the delinquent child and reclaim him as a useful member of the society would be frustrated. (From the paragraph 18 of the middle) ( 4 ) NO doubt, offence u/s. 376 is a heinous crime and an offender of such a crime deserves no sympathy but simultaneously the court is to consider the consequence of a juvenile being kept inside jail along with hardened criminals. That circumstance was not at all taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application and allowing petitionerts detention in the jail. ( 5 ) RICHNESS and influential status of the petitioners family was considered as a ground to reject the prayer for bail. Learned Sessions Judge lost sight of the fact that petitioner is a student who passed the H. S. C. examination only in 1997 and aged little over 15 years by the date of application. There is no other criminal record or antecedent against him. Apart from that suitable and stringent conditions could have been imposed to curb not the real but apprehended circumstance arising out of familys richness. The above discussions are made with the supposition that the petitioner is a juvenile delinquent which is a prima facie taken on the basis of the certificates from the educational institution produced on behalf of the petitioner. The above discussions are made with the supposition that the petitioner is a juvenile delinquent which is a prima facie taken on the basis of the certificates from the educational institution produced on behalf of the petitioner. The said certificates are admissible in evidence, but they are not conclusive proof about the factum of age. When the prosecution has disputed the age stated by the petitioner and has asserted that by the date of occurrence, petitioner was 18 years old, therefore, in fitness to the facts and circumstances, learned Sessions Judge is directed to conduct an enquiry to determine the age. This enquiry be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and during that period, the petitioner is to fully cooperate by rendering himself available for medical examination by the Specialists as per the directions of the learned Sessions Judge either given or to be given. The Investigating agency be allowed opportunity to produce documents or evidence in support of their contention regarding the age of the petitioner -. Similarly, petitioner be given opportunity of tendering evidence from his side. That inquiry being confined to the question of determination of age of the petitioner and learned Sessions Judge being an experienced officer, the enquiry be completed expeditiously and should not be delayed beyond 30 days as noted above. During the aforesaid period petitioner be admitted to interim bail upon terms and conditions which shall appear just and proper to the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner shall surrender in the court on the expiry of the period of interim bail and the Sessions Judge shall consider his prayer for bail in accordance with law after determining the factum as to whether he is a juvenile delinquent or not. The Criminal Misc. case is accordingly disposed of. Misc. Case accordingly disposed of.