ORDER : Deepak Maheshwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner - Bhuri Bai, who is presently said to be confined in Nari Niketan, Kota. 2. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner with the prayer to quash and set aside the orders impugned dated 3rd January, 2017 and 10th January, 2017 passed by learned Juvenile Board, Jhalawar and learned Appellate Court whereby, the application filed under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act was rejected by them respectively. 3. Main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC is pending against the petitioner before the Juvenile Board, Jhalawar. On the date of incident, i.e., 25th December, 1999, the petitioner was of the age of 13 years though no specific document has been produced regarding exact date of birth but in the order dated 16th September, 2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manoharthana, District Jhalawar, she has been treated to be juvenile and has been directed to sent to Juvenile Board, Jhalawar. Since almost 17 years have passed since the incident took place, now the anticipated age of the petitioner comes out to be of the 30 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has attained the age of majority, she cannot be detained in Nari Niketan or Remand Home; and she is required to be released from Nari Niketan. In support of the contentions, he has referred to the following judgments :- (I) Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P. reported in 1989 AIR (SC) 1329; (II) Pooran v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2007 (2) RLW 1311; (III) Jayendra v. State of U.P. reported in 1982 AIR (SC) 685; and, (IV) Rashid @ Rasshid @ Rashidiya v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013 (1) W.L.N. 455 . 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has admitted the factual aspects stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner about the date of incident, anticipated age of the petitioner and the fact that presently, the petitioner is being detained in Nari Niketan, Kota. Learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to refer to any of the judgments contrary to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to refer to any of the judgments contrary to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Pooran (supra) in para - 11 as follows :- "11. On calculating the age of appellant Pooran as per his date of birth i.e. April 4, 1997, we notice that Pooran has by now completed 29 years and 9 months and therefore it is not possible to send him to an observation home established under section 8 of JJ Act for the purpose of rehabilitation and social integration of a juvenile. In a similar situation, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jayendra v. State of UP, (1981) 4 SCC 149 propounded that where accused who was a juvenile on the date of commission of offence, has crossed 23 years of age, he cannot be sent to an approved school in view of his age. Therefore conviction of such an accused was although upheld, the sentence awarded to him was quashed." 6. Same view has been reiterated in the case of Bhoop Ram (supra) while observing that :- "8. Since the appellant is now aged more than 28 years of age, there is no question of the appellant now being sent to an approved school under the U.P. Children Act for being detained there. In a somewhat similar situation, this Court held in Jayendra v. State of U.P., 1981 (4) SCC 149 that where an accused had been wrongly sentenced to imprisonment instead of being treated as a "Child" under Section 2(4) of the U.P. Children Act and sent to an approved school and the accused had crossed the maximum age of detention in an approved school viz. 18 years, the course to be followed is to sustain the conviction but however quash the sentence imposed on the accused and directed his release forthwith. Accordingly, in this case also, we sustain the conviction of the appellant under all the charges framed against him but however quash the sentence awarded to him and direct his release forthwith. The appeal is therefore allowed in so far as the sentences imposed upon the appellant are quashed." 7. Accordingly, in this case also, we sustain the conviction of the appellant under all the charges framed against him but however quash the sentence awarded to him and direct his release forthwith. The appeal is therefore allowed in so far as the sentences imposed upon the appellant are quashed." 7. Taking the judicial pronouncements cited above into consideration, it is amply clear that the juvenile, who has attained the majority in due course of time, despite being convicted for the offences, was not sent to observation home/approved school. In the matter in hand, the petitioner is only facing trial and has not yet been convicted for any of the offences. In view of the fact that she has now attained the majority, it appears proper to release the petitioner from the custody of Nari Niketan, Kota. 8. Since the trial is continuing against her, in order to secure her presence to face trial before the Juvenile Board, Jhalawar, it will be appropriate to release her on furnishing her personal bond as well as surety as ordered by learned Juvenile Board, Jhalawar. 9. The petitioner is directed to move an application before the said Juvenile Board, which will be considered and allowed to grant her bail on the same day. 10. The Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed off accordingly.