IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1491 of 2010 MD. TAJ @ TAJ BABU THROUGH HIS FATHER SON OF MD. ALIM @ PERWEZ ALAM --- PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR --- OPP. PARTY ----------- 02 08.10.2010 Petitioner prays for bail in a case instituted under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of the Penal Code. He was declared juvenile. Learned Juvenile Justice Board, on consideration of the materials on record, rejected his application against which he moved the appellate Court vide Cr. Appeal 58 of 2009 which was rejected by order dated 16.06.2009 whereafter he moved this Court for bail in Cr. Rev. no. 1111 of 2009. This Court by order dated 16.07.2009 (Annexure-3) refused the prayer and disposed of the application with the following observation: “This Court, however, taking into view that petitioner is in custody since 26.11.2008 observes that let the trial Court make all endeavour to conclude the trial itself by examining all the prosecution witnesses within seven (07) months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner is granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself for his release, in the light of different provisions of the Act. In the event, such an application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit uninfluenced by the present order.” On expiry of the aforesaid period petition again moved learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur which was rejected. Aggrieved thereby he preferred Cr. Appeal no. 48 of 2010 which was again rejected observing as under:- 2 “From the perusal of the record it appears that the appellant fled away from the remand home. It appears that firstly, the appellant was handed over to his guardian for his treatment but he remained absent from the proceeding on the one pretext or other. He was not produced on many dates. The appellant fled away on 10.9.09 from the remand home. He remained absent till 29.4.10. From the perusal of the order of Juvenile Justice rejecting the prayer for bail of the appellant it appears that the order of the Hon’ble High Court passed in Cr. Revision no. 1111/09 was not received in the J.J. Board. The certified copy of the aforesaid order was produced only on 29.7.10 by the appellant. Therefore, on the aforesaid reason the trial of the appellant could not be completed. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the appellant is hereby rejected.” Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to state the status of the case. Considering all these facts emanating from record, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Since the petitioner is now again lodged in the remand home, let learned trial Court take steps to examine all the prosecution witnesses within 06 months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order in the Court below, failing which the Court below shall release the petitioner, named above, on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur in connection with , Trial no. 468 of 2010 ( G.R.Case no. 359 of 2008) subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors shall be the father of the petitioner. 3 (ii) The father shall ensure presence of the petitioner on each date(s) fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance without there being any sufficient/convincing explanation, the trial Court shall cancel the bail bond(s) of the petitioner and secure his arrest in accordance with law. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)