IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.1115 of 2011
Arun Kumar Mehta @ Arun Kumar son of Siyaram
Mehta @ Sitaram Mehta resident of village Simri
P.S. Bhaptiyahi, Distt- Supaul.
...Petitioner.
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... Opp. Party.
-----------
2. 08.09.2011 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 7th
July 2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, FTC V, Supaul in Cr. Appeal No.9 of 2011
by which the order dated 4.3.2011 passed by
learned Juvenile Justice Board, Supaul in
Bhaptiyahi P. S. Case No. 58 of 2010 (G.R. No.
1090 of 2010) under Sections 364 A I.P.C. has
been confirmed and the appeal has been
dismissed. The prayer for bail of the
petitioner has also been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has been declared
juvenile aged about less than 15 years by the
Juvenile Justice Board and his prayer for bail
has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice
Board. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr.
Appeal No. 9 of 2011 which has been dismissed
by the impugned order on the ground that if the
2
petitioner is released, he will go into the
association of hard criminals. It is further
submitted that there is no material on record
to show that there is reasonable ground for
presuming such fact. There is also no basis to
presume that the release of the petitioner will
defeat the ends of justice.
Learned A.P.P. for the State could
not controvert the contention of the petitioner
while opposing the prayer.
After hearing learned counsel for
both the parties and on perusal of material on
record, it appears that the contention of
learned counsel for the petitioner is correct.
There is no material on 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 expose him to moral, physical,
psychological danger or that his release would
defeat the ends of justice.
Considering the facts and circumstances, 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
3
of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board,
Supaul in connection with Bhaptiyahi P. S. Case
No. 58 of 2010 ( G. R. No. 1090 of 2010) with
following conditions;-
(i) One of the bailors must be the
father of the petitioner.
(ii) The father of the petitioner
will take care of the petitioner and he will
produce the petitioner in the Court if and when
required. In case of absence on two consecutive
dates, his bail bonds would be liable to be
cancelled.
(iii) The petitioner will not indulge
himself in similar or in any other offence.
(iv) In case of violation of the
terms and conditions of bail, the bail bond of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled
by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and he
will be liable to be taken into custody.
In the result, this revision
application is allowed.
Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)