IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.887 of 2011
Sanjeet Kumar @ Chhotu, son of Sanjay Chaudhary @ Sanjay Kumar
Chaudhary, resident of Mohalla-Balughat, P.S.- Town Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur.
Versus
The State Of Bihar .
-----------
2. 26.07.2011 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
15.03.2011 passed in Cr. Appeal No.15/2011 by the learned
Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur by which appeal has been
dismissed and his prayer for bail has been rejected.
Heard Mr. S.D. Yadav, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.Anil Kumar Singh-I, learned counsel for the
State.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner was declared juvenile by the
learned Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 5.02.2011. His
prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide
order dated 24.02.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Cr.
Appeal No.15/11 before the learned Sessions Judge, which has
been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the
petitioner is an accused under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and
offence is very heinous in nature. He has further submitted that
after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted for the
2
offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of the I.P.C.
Moreover, there is no material on the record to 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. It is further submitted that parents of the petitioner will
take care of the petitioner and they will produce the petitioner in
the court as and when required.
Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert
the contention 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 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 as stated
above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be
sustained and the same is set aside. The petitioner above-named
is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.7,000/-with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board in Muzaffarpur
3
Town P.S. Case No.475 of 2010 with the following terms and
conditions :
(i) The petitioner will not indulge in
similar or in any other offence.
(ii) The parents of the petitioner will
take care of the petitioner and
father of the petitioner will produce
him in the court if and when
required.
(iii) 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.)