IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.1180 of 2011
Raushan Kumar @ Gautam Kumar, son of Sunil Kumar,
resident of Mohalla-New Area, P.S.-Nawada (Town), District- Nawada.
.........Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar .
.......Opposite Party
-----------
3. 28.09.2011 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 19.08.2011 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Nawada in Cr. Appeal (Juvenile)
No.27/2011 by which the order dated 1.08.2011 passed
by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada in G.R.
Case No.378/2011, Trial No.258/2011 arising out of
Nawada (Town) P.S. Case No.99/2011 under Sections
341, 323, 324 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of
the Arms Act has been confirmed and the prayer of the
petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected.
Heard Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. I.B. Pandey, learned
counsel for the State.
The main contention of the learned counsel
2
for the petitioner is that the petitioner was declared a
juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide order
dated 23.05.2011. His prayer for bail was rejected by the
Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 1.08.2011.
Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr.
Appeal (Juvenile) No.27/2011, which has been
dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that 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 2.05.2011. He
further submits that the petitioner has no criminal
antecedent.
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. There is no material on record to
3
show that 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.
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, Nawada in G.R. Case
No.378/2011, Trial No.258/2011 arising out of Nawada
(Town) P.S. Case No.99/2011 on the following terms
and conditions :
(i) One of the bailors will be the
mother of the petitioner.
(ii) Mother 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
4
offence.
(iv) In case of his absence for two
consecutive dates or in case of
violation of the terms of the
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.)