IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1604 of 2010 RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA, SON OF RAMBALAK GUPTA, R/O- VILLAGE- BACHWARA, P.S.- BACHWARA, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI THROUGH THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Pramod Manbansh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 2 10.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the sustainability of order dated 16.6.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Appeal no. 59 of 2010 whereby his prayer for release has been considered and rejected. As per the allegation in the F.I.R., petitioner, who has been declared juvenile aged about 15 years on the date of occurrence, is said to have committed rape on 05 years old daughter of the informant. On a claim raised by him, learned Juvenile Justice Board by order dated 7.12.2009 declared him juvenile whereafter his prayer for bail was considered and rejected by the same Court on 14.12.2009. Aggrieved thereof, he preferred Cr. Appeal no. 177 of 2009 which was considered and rejected by order dated 11.1.2010. It appears that petitioner again moved the learned Juvenile Justice Board for bail on the ground that the juvenile in conflict with law (petitioner) has remained in custody since 15.7.2009. The said prayer was rejected by order dated 21.4.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred the present criminal appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 59/2010 which 2 has been considered and rejected observing as under in paragraph 9: “Learned Predecessor court by judgment dated 11.1.10 dismissed criminal appeal preferred by the appellant considering all facts Juvenile Justice Act no doubt mandates release of the juvenile in conflict were law on bail irrespective of nature and gravity of offence alleged save and except 3 grounds including the ground that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Learned Predecessor court by judgment dated 11.1.10 has dismissed earlier criminal appeal preferred by juvenile appellant on ground that he has dangerous moral and psychological make up for which his release is bound to defeat the ends of justice which calls for no interference/reconsideration by this court in this criminal appeal filed again which no vew feels & circumstances.” Counsel for the petitioner submits that the father has taken upon himself entire responsibility respecting the petitioner in the event he is released on bail. It is next contended that the petitioner is in custody/remand home since 15.7.2009. It is also contended that the injury report prepared in respect of the victim girl does not support the case in its entirety. Learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer. Considering the allegation and the manner in which it was committed, this Court is inclined to agree with the view of the learned Appellate Court culled out in paragraph 9. Prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is in custody since 15.7.2009, this Court observes that if the prosecution fails to examine all the prosecution witnesses within 08 months from the date of receipt/communication of the order in 3 the court below, the petitioner shall have liberty to renew prayer for bail in the Court below itself which shall be considered uninfluenced by the present. The application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )