IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.576 of 2011 GAUTAM KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 13.05.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner is declared juvenile in conflict with law. He is facing charge along with others punishable under Section 304/34 of the Penal Code. As per F.I.R., there was some Mar-pit between the father of the informant and petitioner along with other co-accused persons on 07.04.2010 in which father of the informant received some injuries. He was carried to hospital. Ten days thereafter he died whereafter F.I.R. was lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant is admittedly not an eye witness to the occurrence. A bare reading of the F.I.R. would indicate that there was mar-pit between both the sides as a result whereof the father of the informant received some injuries which unfortunately caused his death. It is submitted that petitioner is in custody /remand home since 07.07.2010 and that he does not carry any criminal antecedent. Learned counsel further submits that although affidavit, in support of the present application, has been affirmed by own brother-in-law of the petitioner but the father would take entire responsibilities respecting the petitioner if released on bail. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that petitioner deserves bail. 2 This Court, while setting aside the impugned order(s), directs release of 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 Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nawada, in connection with Hisua P.S. case no. 41 of 2010, G.R. case no. 671 of 2010, subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors shall be the father of the petitioner. (ii) It shall be the duty of the said bailor to monitor the conduct/behavior of the petitioner and to produce him in Court in person as and when required therefor. In case of default in such appearance, the trial Court shall have liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner and secure his arrest in accordance with law. (iii) During subsistency of the present privilege of bail, if it is found that petitioner has involved himself in another criminal case, the same shall be treated as a breach of the condition of bail entailing cancellation. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)