IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1444 of 2009 KISHORE KUNAL @ KUNAL KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ------ 3 26.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Missing of kidnapped boy Saurav Kumar was reported to the police, at the same time, this petitioner was also found disappeared from his house. In course of investigation, kidnapped boy was recovered rather left by a motorcycle rider. His statement was recorded giving vivid picture of his disappearance as plan was chalked out by this petitioner along with Pintu started from to go for English movie in Mona Cinema. Subsequently they proposed to go to Kieul to have talk with a girl also. There they reached to the house of Madan Mandal. A guest like treatment was given to him there. Thereafter he was taken to another destination and in way it was disclosed that he was kidnapped. Madan Mandal, some of his associates have been named, having active participation in kidnapping of the victim boy. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no association of 2 the petitioner with Madan Mandal though he was known to him along with kidnapped boy. Petitioner is in custody since 14.12.2008. The only question in the whole episode is if relation of Madan Mandal, can be taken as association of the petitioner with him, Madan Mandal’s antecedent has not been questioned that he was not involved in other kidnapping cases also. The defence of the petitioner is that the kidnapped boy as well as petitioner though were known to Madan Mandal but to the extent that he was entertaining them. There can be substance in the submission but after assurance that kidnapped boy reached there, this petitioner along with Pintu disappeared from there and second part of episode of kidnapping began. The victim was taken to another place and in way only he was told that he was kidnapped, Madan Mandal if is not associate/member of petitioner or kidnapped boy, there is no other occasion about his having relation with petitioner or the kidnapped boy than having some instrument to allure young boy facilitating kidnapping. So 3 the discussed circumstance clearly indicates that the petitioner was in association with Madan Mandal, a known criminal, only his custody since 14.12.2008 and being a juvenile never justified him to allow on bail. So, the rejection order dated 24.7.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr.Appeal no. 227 of 2009 confirming the order dated 1.7.2009 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Patna in Juvenile Justice Board Case No. 24/2009 suffers with no infirmity. This revision application is accordingly, rejected. However, the Juvenile Justice Board, Patna is directed to expedite the trial of Juvenile Justice Board Case No. 24/09 (Rajuv Nagar P.S.Case No. 144/08). (Mandhata Singh,J.) AI