JUDGMENT Hon'ble Dr. Kothari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the Sate and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that said accused is in custody in pursuance of judgment order dated 11.4.2008 passed by learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 419, 406 and 120-B of IPC. The accused petitioner has been sentenced as under :- 1. Under Section 420 IPC : 2 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine undergo two months' simple imprisonment. 2. Under Section 419 IPC : 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 3. Under Section 406 IPC : 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 4. Under Section 120-B IPC : 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 3. Against the judgment order of the learned trial Court dated 11.4.2008 convicting the accused-petitioner, an appeal was preferred, however, same was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand vide order dated 7.1.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 174/2008 while upholding the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dated 11.4.2008. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also produced a copy of order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand dated 7.1.2011, which shows that said accused is in custody since 7.1.2011 alongwith his minor son, namely, Laxman Singh, aged about 7-8 years and daughter, namely Ku. Radha, aged about 5-6 years as the accused-petitioner expressed before the learned revisional Court that since his wife had expired about 6 years ago and there was no other relative except him to take care of these children, therefore, these children may be a allowed to stay with him in jail. Accordingly, the said accused-petitioner is in custody along with two children as per note appended with the order dated 7.1.2011. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for suspension of sentence as he accused-petitioner during the trial remained in confinement for three months, however upon filing appeal sentence awarded to him by the trial court was suspended. Accordingly, the said accused-petitioner is in custody along with two children as per note appended with the order dated 7.1.2011. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for suspension of sentence as he accused-petitioner during the trial remained in confinement for three months, however upon filing appeal sentence awarded to him by the trial court was suspended. He further submits that after dismissal of the appeal by the learned revisional Court on 7.1.2011 the petitioner is in custody along with hi two children and thus total served sentence of five months. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail (SOS) application. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and particularly in view of the fact that there is nobody else in the family to look-after the children, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offences referred above of learned trial Court. 8. Accordingly the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First, Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand vide his judgment dated 11.4.2008 in Criminal Regulation Case No. 226/2007 and confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand vide judgment dated 7.1.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 174/2008 against the accused petitioner Roop Singh S/o Sohan Singh, shall remain suspended till the final disposal of aforesaid criminal revision petition provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance in this Court on 27.4.2011 and whenever called upon to do so. 9. Before parting, this Court feels serious concern about the note appended in the order dated 7.1.2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajsamand by which on the request of the petitioner, Roop Singh, his two minor children viz., son (Laxman Singh, 7-8 years of age) and daughter 9Ku. Radha, 5-6 years of age) were also lodged in the District Jail - Rajsamand since 7.1.2011 since the wife of the present petition was said to have expired about six years back. 10. The Court called upon the learned Public Prosecutor to explain under what authority of law, these two minor children can be kept in custody along with their father. The Jail Superintendent of Central Jail, Jodhpur Mr. 10. The Court called upon the learned Public Prosecutor to explain under what authority of law, these two minor children can be kept in custody along with their father. The Jail Superintendent of Central Jail, Jodhpur Mr. A.R. Niyaji is also present in the Court. Learned Public Prosecutor drew the Court's attention to Rule 242 of the Rajasthan Jail Manual which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference : "242. Child with mother. A Child under the age of four years, the offspring of a female prisoner, whether a convict or under-trial, shall, if it has not been weaned or if it has been weaned to jail with its relative can be found to take charge of it, be admitted to jail with its mother. Any female prisoner may be allowed to retain her child with her until it is four or with the approval of the Superintendent even up to six years of age, if she so desires. As soon as any child admitted or born in jail attains the age of four or six years, as the case may be, the Superintendent shall communicate with the Magistrate of the district of which the mother is or was a resident with a view to arrangements being made for the custody of such child. For the diet scale for children, see paragraph 37 of Section 1 scale of diet part IX Female convicts who have children with them in jail except prisoners sentenced to transportation shall not be transferred to Central Jails until the children have been made over to their friends or have otherwise been taken charge of." 11. According to Rule 242 of the Rajasthan Jail Manual, until a child under the age of 4 years, the offspring of a female prisoner, whether a convict or under-trial shall if it has not been weaned or if it has been weaned and no friend or relative can be found to take charge of it be admitted to jail with its mother. Any female prisoner may be allowed to retain her child with her until it is four or with the approval of the Superintendent even up to six years of age if she so desires. Any female prisoner may be allowed to retain her child with her until it is four or with the approval of the Superintendent even up to six years of age if she so desires. As soon as any child admitted or born in jail attains the age of four or six years, as the case may be, the Superintendent shall communicate with the Magistrate of the district of which he mother is or was a resident with a view to arrangements being made for the custody of such child. 12. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which defines term 'child in the need of case and protection' in Clause 2(d) of the said Act defines in Clause (iv) who has a parent or guardian and such parent or guardian is unfit or incapacitated to exercise control over the child. The further provision contained in Section 29 providing for constitution of Child Welfare Committee Section 34 providing for establishment of children's home and Section 37 providing for shelter homes have been enacted in the said legislation. For the purposes of ready reference, the relevant Sections 34 and 37 are reproduced hereinbelow. 34. Children's homes : (1) The State Government may establish and maintain either by itself of in association with he voluntary organization, children's homes, in ever district or group of districts as the case may be, for the reception of child is need of care and protection during the pendency of any inquiry and subsequently for their care, treatment, education, training, development and rehabilitation. (2) The State Government may, by rules made under this Act, provide for the management of children's homes including the standards and the nature of services to be provided by them, and the circumstances under which, and the manner in which, the certification of a children's home or recognition to a voluntary organization may be granted or withdrawn. 37. Shelter Homes. (1) The State Government may recognize, reputed and capable voluntary organizations and provide them assistance to set up and administer as may shelter homes for juvenile or children as may be required. 37. Shelter Homes. (1) The State Government may recognize, reputed and capable voluntary organizations and provide them assistance to set up and administer as may shelter homes for juvenile or children as may be required. (2) The shelter homes referred in sub-section (1) shall function as drop-in-centres for the children in the need of urgent support who have been brought to such homes through such persons as are referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 32. (3) As far as possible, the shelter homes shall have such facilities as may be prescribed by the rules." 13. In view of aforesaid, the directions contained in the order dated 7.1.2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Rajsamand cannot be appreciated and the said order has resulted in unnecessarily and illegally these two minor children to remain in the district Jail, Rajsamand since 7.1.2011 with their father. This is indeed sorry state of affairs and it appears that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Rajsamand remained oblivious of the aforesaid provisions of law and without any reason or rhyme, has sent these two minor children with their father in the jail, who is convicted and whose sentence, of course has been suspended today. 14. However, this Court is of the opinion that in order to avoid any such contingency in future, not only the subordinate courts be directed to take care not to send minor children in custody with either parent convicted/under trial and such children except strictly in accordance with Rule 242 of Jail Manual, quoted above, who are left without any care should either be sent to children's home or shelter homes created, recognized or established under Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. 15. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that in every district or group of districts, as the case may be children's home or shelter homes have either not been established so far or such reputed and capable voluntary organizations which have established such shelter homes, have not been recognized and notified with wider publicity to make use of them in appropriate circumstances. Therefore this Court is of the opinion that the State Government should be directed to comply with the provisions of Section 34 and 37 (supra) of the Act of 2000 in letter and spirit and depending upon the data available of such minor children, whose care protection is required to be undertaken by these children homes or shelter homes, adequate number of children's home are directed to be established in each district or group of districts in the State of Rajasthan and/or independent shelter homes established by voluntary organizations should be recognized and notified with wider publicity so that their services may be utilized for the aforesaid purposes. This Court accordingly direct he director General of Police, Director General (Prisons) and the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan to report the compliance of these directions within a period of three months from today alongwith relevant data(s) and existing infrastructure in the aforesaid terms and requirement thereof, and action taken in this regard may be apprised to this Court in he form of compliance report in he aforesaid pending revision petition. 16. With these observations, the bail application seeking suspension of sentence is disposed of. The Registrar General of this Court is requested to immediately circulate copy of this order to the aforesaid authorities and all the subordinate courts for the needful compliance.