Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.825 of 2012 ====================================================== Banti @ Chakrapani, son of Sri Dinesh Singh, resident of Village Maksudpur, P.S. Khijarsarai District Gaya, under the guardianship of his father .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rohit Mishra, Advocate Mr. Nityanand Sharma, Advocate. For the State of Bihar : Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, Addl.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 13-08-2012 A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner during the course of hearing of the case. Let it be taken on record. The petitioner, being aggrieved by an order dated 7.6.2012 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jehanabad in G.R. No. 2266 of 2011/T.R. No. 449(J) of 2012, corresponding to Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 492 of 2011, as also the order dated 2.7.2012 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 35 of 2012 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jehanabad, refusing to release him on bail, has preferred the present revision application under Section 53 of the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.825 of 2012 (2) dt.13-08-2012 2 / 4 2 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short ‘the Act’), questioning the correctness, propriety and validity of the aforesaid two orders. It is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner has been declared to be juvenile by order dated 16.5.2012 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jehanabad. It is contended that the petitioner is under detention since 2.2.2012, i.e. for over six months. It is next submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. vide Annexure 1 instituted for offence under [STATUTE] , but during the course of investigation his name transpired. It is also submitted that on the basis of almost same set of materials, the petitioner has been made accused in five more criminal cases merely on suspicion, but in those cases he has already been granted bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner being a juvenile, is entitled to have a privilege of bail under the mandate of section 12(1) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the parents of the petitioner are prepared to stand as bailers and they are further prepared to keep supervision over the future conduct of the petitioner, so that he does not fall in the company of known criminals. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed the aforesaid factual position. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.825 of 2012 (2) dt.13-08-2012 3 / 4 3 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present application stands allowed. The impugned order dated 7.6.2012 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jehanabad and the impugned appellate order dated 2nd August, 2012 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 35 of 2012 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jehanaad, are hereby set aside. The petitioner Banti alias Chakrapani is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with G.R. No. 2266 of 2011/T.R. No. 449(J) of 2012, corresponding to Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 492 of 2011 to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jehanabad, subject to the conditions that :- 1. Both the bailors shall be parents of the petitioner. Father of the petitioner shall furnish an undertaking that he shall keep strict supervision over the future conduct of the petitioner and shall not allow him to fall in the company of known criminals. 2. The petitioner shall appear before the Probation Officer, Jehanabad, on first Monday of first week of every month, unless prevented by some valid and sufficient reason, who shall keep supervision over future conduct of the petitioner. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.825 of 2012 (2) dt.13-08-2012 4 / 4 4 3. If the petitioner is found involved in any other criminal case in future, learned Juvenile Justice Board shall be entitled to cancel his bail bonds after giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing. 4. Violation of any of the terms and conditions during the pendency of trial/ inquiry in the case, referred to above, shall entail cancellation of bail of the petitioner. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 379

Statute Text:
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Theft. Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.