IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Revision No.894 of 2011
Amit Kumar, Son of Sailesh Kumar @ Sanjeet Kumar, Resident of
Village-Nandan Bigha, Police Station-Hulasganj, District-Jehanabad, At
present Renter in the House of Dipak Kumar (Informant) Mohalla-Ram
Chandrapur (Shivpuri), Police Station-Laheri, District-Nalanda, under the
guardianship of father of the petitioner.
.....Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Bihar .....Opposite Party.
----------------------------------
03/ 25.08.2011 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 28th of June,
2011, passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions
Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Criminal
(Juvenile) Appeal No. 61 of 2011, by which the
order dated 10.05.2011 passed by the court of
Juvenile Justice Board, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in
Juvenile Case No. 22 of 2011 has been confirmed and
the appeal has been dismissed and the prayer for
bail was rejected.
Heard Shri Devendra Prasad Singh,
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Shri Hirday Prasad Singh and learned
Counsel for the State.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner was declared juvenile
by the Juvenile Justice Board, thereafter, his
prayer for bail was rejected vide its order dated
2
10.05.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred
Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 61 of 2011, which
has been dismissed on the ground that there is
possibility that the release of juvenile is likely
to bring him into association of criminals and he
has further submitted that the accused/petitioner
has no criminal antecedent. The report was called
for from the Probation Officer vide Letter No. 38
dated 25.04.2011. There is no material to show that
the release of the petitioner will defeat the ends
of justice and there is no material to show that if
the petitioner is released, he will go into
association of unknown criminals.
Learned Counsel for the State has
submitted that father of the petitioner will take
care of the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, hearing the parties and perusal of the
impugned order as well as the report submitted by
the Probation Officer, it appears that the
contention of the petitioner is correct. There is
no material on the record to show that there is
reasonable ground for believing that the release of
the petitioner is likely to bring him into
association with any known criminal or exposed him
to moral, physical, psychological danger or his
3
release will defeat the ends of justice.
Considering the facts and circumstances
stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order is
not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. The above
named petitioner is directed to be released on bail
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board Case
No. 22 of 2011, arising out of Laheri P.S. Case No.
16 of 2011 with the following conditions:
(i) the father of the petitioner
will be one of the bailors, he will produce
the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice
Board if and when required, in case of absence
on two consecutive dates his bail bond liable
to be cancelled.
(ii) the petitioner will not
indulge in similar or any other offence, in
case of violation of the terms his bail bond
liable to be cancelled by Juvenile Justice
Board and he shall be taken into custody.
In the result, this revision application
is allowed.
(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)
kksinha/-