IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.111 of 2011 SHYAMA KANT SHARMA @ BHIM KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 03 29.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and the State. Petitioner, who has been declared juvenile in conflict with law, is aggrieved by order dated 05.08.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, III Gaya on Cr. Appeal ( Juvenile ) no. 09 of 2010/ 71 of 2010 whereby the prayer for bail was considered and rejected. Petitioner is facing charge punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Penal Code. As per prosecution case, a dispute had arisen between children playing in the village. It is said that the mother of the petitioner brought double barrel gun and handed it over to the petitioner and instructed to fire. Petitioner fired killing one of the sons of the informant. It is further alleged that brother of the petitioner assaulted another boy with dagger. It is further the prosecution case that the petitioner again fired causing injury to other boys/children playing nearby. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the gravity of the allegation is not relevant consideration in the matter of consideration of grant of bail. It is submitted that petitioner who has been declared juvenile is in custody since 23.04.2010. It is also contended that ‘Nana’ ( maternal grand father) of the petitioner has 2 taken upon himself the responsibilities respecting the petitioner in case he is released on bail. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, on the other hand, submits that the superior police officer on investigation has found that the petitioner and others were involved in realizing ‘chanda’ forcibly which was protested and the same ultimately resulted in commission of the occurrence. A report from the concerned Probation Officer was called for by order dated 23.02.2011, which is available on record at Flag-‘A’. It appears from the said report that the father, mother, and two brothers of the petitioner are facing charges punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that cognizance has not been taken against the father and as such it cannot be said he is facing allegation/charge of commission of murder at this stage. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the view that the release of the petitioner at this stage would defeat the ends of justice. This Court further finds that going by the contents of the F.I.R. and the report his release at this stage would possibly expose him to psychological and moral danger as also bring him in association of persons who are facing heinous criminal charge. Accordingly, prayer for bail is refused at this stage. However, considering the fact that he is in custody since 23.04.2010, this Court observes that if the trial of the petitioner does not commence and records satisfactory progress within 07 months 3 from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order in the Court below, petitioner shall have liberty to renew prayer for bail in the Court below itself whereafter his application shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law uninfluenced by the present order. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)