Patna High Court - Orders
Mukesh Vishwakarma @ Vikki @ Mukesh Kr. ... vs The State Of Bihar on 15 September, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. REV. No.826 of 2011
Mukesh Vishwakarma @ Vikki @ Mukesh Kr.
Vishwakarma, son of Umashanker Vishwakarma,
r/o village- Baknaura, P.S. Rohtas, District-
Rohtas.
... Petitioner.
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... Opp. Party
-----------
3. 15.09.2011The 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 7.6.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr. Appeal No. 15 of 2011 by which the order dated 2.2.2011 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas at Sasaram in J.J.B. Case No. 5 of 2011 arising out of Sasaram (M) P. S. Case No. 947 of 2010 under Sections 395 and 412 I.P.C. corresponding to G. R. Case No. 2925 of 2010 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. Thereafter, he made a prayer for bail which has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and 2 thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal which has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner may repeat the same offence and it is likely to defeat the ends of justice. He has further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and his father will look after him. He has further submitted that a report has also been received in which no criminal antecedent has been mentioned.
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 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. From the report of Probation Officer, Sasaram Rohtas vide Letter No. 81 dated 8.8.2011 it appears that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Considering the facts and
3
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 of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with J.J.B. Case No. 5 of 2011 arising out of Sasaram (M) P.S. Case No. 947 of 2010 corresponding to G. R. No. 2925 of 2010 with following conditions;-
(i) One of the bailors must be the father/near relative 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. 4
In the result, this revision
application is allowed.
Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)