IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.1162 of 2011
Mukesh Kumar Ray, son of Nalendu Kumar Ray, resident of
village- Perhap, P.S.- Sahar, District- Bhojpur (Arrah).
..........Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
...........Opposite Party
-----------
2. 27.09.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this
revision application under Section 53 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
against the order dated 27.05.2011 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Appeal No.126/2011 by
which the order dated 16.04.2011 passed by the learned
Juvenile Justice Board, Patna in J.J.B. Case No.33/11
arising out of Patrakarnagar P.S. Case No.248/10 under
Section 377 of the I.P.C. has been confirmed and the
prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected.
Heard Mr. Mahendra Thakur, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anand Kishore
Chaudhary, learned counsel for the State.
The main contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner has been declared a
juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide order
dated 26.02.2011. His prayer for bail was rejected by the
2
Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 16.04.2011.
Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal
No.126/11, which has been dismissed by the impugned
order on the ground that the petitioner has committed
unnatural offence. There is no material on record to show
the release of the petitioner will bring him into association
with known criminal and expose him to moral, physical
and psychological danger and his release would defeat the
ends of justice. He has further submitted that the petitioner
has been in custody since 3.12.2010.
Learned counsel for the State could not
controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing
the prayer of the petitioner.
After hearing the learned counsel for both the
parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears
that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
is correct. It also appears from the report dated 20.09.2011
at flag ‘A’, which has been received from the Probation
Officer through the Juvenile Justice Board, Patna that the
petitioner has no criminal antecedent. There is no material
on record to show that the release of the petitioner will
bring him into association with known criminal and
3
expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger
and his release would defeat the ends of justice.
Considering the facts and circumstances stated
above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be
sustained. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner
above-named is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile
Justice Board, Patna in connection with Patrakarnagar P.S.
Case No.248/10, G.R. No.5976/10 on the following terms
and conditions :
(i) One of the bailors will be the
father of the petitioner.
(ii) Father of the petitioner will
produce the petitioner in the
court if and when required.
(iii) The petitioner will not indulge
in similar or in any other
offence.
(iv) In case of his absence for two
consecutive dates or in case of
violation of the terms of the
4
bail, his bail bond will be liable
to be cancelled by the learned
Juvenile Justice Board and he
will be taken into custody.
In the result, this application is allowed.
V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)