IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.227 of 2011 DEEPAK MANDAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar APP ----------- 02 25.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner, who has been declared juvenile in conflict with law, is aggrieved by order dated 14th January, 2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Munger in Cr. Appeal no. 132 of 2010, whereby agreeing with the opinion of the learned Juvenile Justice Board prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected. Petitioner is facing charges punishable under Section 302 and allied Sections of the Penal Code. As per prosecution case, few accused persons named in the F.I.R. along with few unknown dressed in army uniform arrived at the house of the informant. They knocked the door whereafter one of the inmates opened the main door of the house. All of them intruded into the house and captivated Kailash Pandit and was taken to a lonely place. Further the prosecution case is that family members also followed them and cajoled the accused persons to allow him to go. It is the allegation that at the orders of one Narayan Pandit one of the accuseds named in the F.I.R. severed the neck of Kailash Pandit. The inmates of the house were enclosed in a room and thereafter they went away raising slogans. Subsequently it was found that a chowkidar called Kamleshwari Mandal was also done to death 2 by cutting his neck. In Course of investigation, the name of the petitioner transpired as one of the members of the said group of criminals who executed the occurrence. It further appears that petitioner was arrested with certain fire arms and literature indicating his affinity with naxalite group (Maowadi). On a plea raised he has been declared juvenile on the date of occurrence. Learned Juvenile Justice Board has, however, considering the materials on record rejected his prayer for bail concluding that his release is likely to bring him in association with known criminals which will ruin his character and career. Aggrieved over the said order he preferred appeal which was considered and rejected affirming the view taken by learned Juvenile Justice Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that going by the allegation contained in the F.I.R. he is not the main assailant. It is contended that the F.I.R. was lodged after some delay yet the petitioner was not named therein. It is next contended that he is in custody/remand home in connection with the present case since 13.08.2010. It is also the stand of the petitioner that in a case registered under Arms Act petitioner has already been released on bail by this Court. On this facts it is submitted that petitioner deserves to be released on bail considering the provisions contained under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that the materials on record would 3 reflect that petitioner has association with naxalite group. It is further submitted that occurrence was committed in a very gruesome manner. It is also contended that petitioner has criminal antecedent. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. The manner in which the occurrence was committed is horrifying. It appears that petitioner has close association with a naxalite/extremist group. I am thus inclined to concur with the view taken by both the Courts below. Application is dismissed. Sym/ ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)