IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.923 of 2009 PATO MANDAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the Petitioner:- Mr. Gajanan Arun For the Opposite party:- Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ----------- 05 10.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 22.4.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Munger, whereby the appeal preferred by him under Section 52 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short „the Act‟) has been rejected. Petitioner was made an accused in a case instituted under Sections 341, 326, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Later on the informant of the said case died and as such Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. Allegations, as per F.I.R., is that when the informant had gone to market, the petitioner along with his two other brothers, fired from their respective Pistols/Firearms, two of the bullets hit the informant. Specific case is that the shot fired by 2 the petitioner, hit the abdomen of the informant, who subsequently died in course of treatment of the injuries so sustained by him at the hands of the accused persons including the petitioner. The petitioner was taken into custody on 19.8.2008. He raised a claim that he is juvenile. An inquiry appears to have been made by the Juvenile Board and under order dated 3.2.2009 he was found and held a juvenile on the date of alleged occurrence. The learned Juvenile Board, however, under order dated 2.3.2009 considered his prayer for release on bail and rejected the same, considering the entire circumstances available on record including the allegations. It was found that the manner of occurrence definitely indicate that there is every likelihood of the petitioner coming into the association of known criminals (may be the brother). The petitioner aggrieved by the said order preferred appeal which was considered and rejected by the impugned order. The learned Sessions Judge, having regard to the materials available on record while rejecting his bail observed as under:- “Therefore, I feel that his release would defeat the ends of justice and there is likelihood of he going in association with criminals. Therefore, I 3 do not feel to release him on bail.” Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.8.2008. It is highlighted that the other two accused of the present case are none other than own brothers of the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, however, supported the impugned judgment. Considering the submissions made at the bar and after going through the records, this Court agrees with the view taken by the court below in declining his release. However, having regard to the fact that he is in custody since 19.8.2008. This Court observes/directs as under:- Let the trial court make all endeavor to conclude the trial itself by examining all the prosecution witnesses within five (05) 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 4 present order. With this observation, this application is disposed of. P.K. (K.K. Mandal, J.)