High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Prashant Kumar @ Bholu @ Bhola vs The State Of Bihar on 1 August, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Prashant Kumar @ Bholu @ Bhola vs The State Of Bihar on 1 August, 2011
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                      CR. REV. No.919 of 2011
                       Prashant Kumar @ Bholu @ Bhola s/o
                        Shatrudhan Singh, resident of village-
                        Sarsar, P.S. Siwan (Mufassil),District-
                        Siwan, through his father ad litem.
                                                         ... Petitioner.
                                                    Versus
                       The State Of Bihar       ... Opp. Party.
                              -----------

2. 01.08.2011 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

14.7.2011 passed by learned 3 rd Additional

Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Cr. Appeal No. 26

of 2011 by which the order dated 6.6.2011

passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board,

Gopalganj in J. J. Case No. 181 of 2010 has

been confirmed and the prayer for bail of the

petitioner has been rejected on the ground that

if the petitioner is released, he would come

into association of criminal who has not been

arrested and the release of the petitioner

would be neither in the interest of the

petitioner nor in the interest of justice.

Heard Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala

Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State.

It is submitted that Mirganj P. S.

Case No. 211 of 2010 was instituted by Sangeeta
2

Devi, the wife of the deceased, under Section

302 I.P.C and 27 of the Arms Act against

unknown. Later on, during investigation the

name of the petitioner has appeared in his

confessional statement. It is also submitted

that the petitioner has been declared juvenile

by the Juvenile Justice Board vide its order

dated 28.1.2011. The prayer for bail was made

which has been rejected by the learned Juvenile

Justice Board vide order dated 6.6.2011,

against which order the petitioner preferred

criminal appeal which was dismissed by the 3rd

Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj vide

impugned order on the ground that one of the

accused is still away and if the petitioner is

released, he will meet with that accused and

other miscreants. The release of the petitioner

will be neither in the interest of the

petitioner nor in the interest of justice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner

further submits that there is no material on

record to show that there is reasonable ground

for presuming 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
3

that his release would defeat the ends of

justice.

Learned A.P.P. for the State could

not controvert the contention of learned

counsel for the petitioner while opposing the

prayer for bail of the petitioner.

After hearing learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the material on

record, it appears that the contention of

learned counsel for the petitioner is correct.

There is no 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 as 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 only)

with two sureties of the like amount each to

the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice

Board, Gopalganj in connection with J. J.

Case No. 181 of 2010, G. R. No. 2814 of 2010
4

arising out of Mirganj P. S. Case No. 211 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
                          5




                                    and he will be liable to

                                    be taken into custody.

                    In       the   result,   this   revision

          application is allowed.


Kanchan                       (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)