IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.1071 of 2011
Vivekanand Bharti @ Vicky @ Viky Kumar son of Dr.
Dayanand Bharti resident of Mohalla- Ward No. 26,
N. P. Supaul, P.S. Supaul, District- Supaul.
.... Petitioner.
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... Opp. Party.
-----------
2. 02.09.2011 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
19.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-II, Supaul in Cr. Appeal
No.04/2011(s) by which the order dated
19.01.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile
Justice Board, Supaul in Supaul P.S. Case
No.113/2010, G.R. No.445/10 for the offence
punishable under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C.
has been confirmed and the prayer of the
petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The main contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner was declared a juvenile by the
learned Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated
29.10.2010. His prayer for bail was rejected by
the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated
2
19.01.2011. Against the said order, the
petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.04/11 (S),
which has been rejected by the impugned order
on the ground that the release of the
petitioner is not in the interest of justice
since he will fall into association of the
known criminals and expose him to moral danger
and his release would affect the ends of
justice. He has further submitted that 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.
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. He has further submitted
that the petitioner is a student of class X of
William High School, Supaul. He has been in
custody since 14.05.2010.
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
3
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 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/-(ten
thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Juvenile Justice Board, Supaul in connection
with Supaul P.S. Case No.113/10, G.R.No.445/10
on the following terms and conditions :
(i) One of the bailors will be the
father of the petitioner.
(ii) Father 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 offence.
4
(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.
Let a copy of this order be sent to
the Court below through Fax at the cost of the
petitioner.
Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)