IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1619 of 2010 FIROZ HAZAM (MINOR) S/O- RIYAZU HAZAM @ RIYAZUDDIN HAZAM UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RIYAZU HAZAM @ RIYAZUDDIN HAZAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KUSHDIHARA, P.S.- ROHTAS, DISTT. ROHTAS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 22.02.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 7.10.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr. Appeal No. 62 of 2010 whereby his prayer for bail has been refused. Petitioner is a declared juvenile in conflict with law. He is facing charge punishable under Section 201, 302, 363 and 120B/34 of Indian Penal Code. Minor son of the informant was abducted and killed. One person was named as an accused. In course of investigation, aforesaid accused namely Md. Nizam Hajam made a confessional statement implicating the petitioner in the said crime. It further appears that on the confessional statement made by aforesaid Nizam Hajam, the dead body of the victim was recovered in a decomposed condition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that other accused persons who have been suspected as an offender based on confessional statement of aforesaid Nizam Hajam has since been released on bail. It is contended that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. At best, the prosecution case hinges on the theory of last seen. It is contended that the full brother of 2 the petitioner has filed the present affidavit attached with the bail application and that the father and his brother (deponent) would monitor the petitioner and will take all precautionary steps so that he does not fall again in the company of the known criminals. A report from the concerned Probation Officer was called for which is placed at Flag-A. It appears therefrom that petitioner has a large family and there is also immovable property in the family. It further appears therefrom that the petitioner had passed recently his I.Com examination from a Inter College. The said report further indicates that the whole family is ready to ensure that the petitioner will not fall in bad company, if released on bail. Having regard to all these facts, this Court is satisfied that he should be released on bail. Consequently, while setting aside the two orders dated 7.10.2010 and 15.9.2010, petitioner abovenamed is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with J.J.B. Case No. 543 of 2010 (arising out of Rohtas P.S. case no. 41 of 2010) subject to the following conditions: (i) One of the bailers will be his own father/brother of the petitioner. (ii) It will be the duty of the father to keep a vigil on the petitioner and produce him 3 before the Court as and when called upon. In case of default in such appearance before the Court, it will be open to the Court in seisin of the matter to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (iii) During the subsistency of the present privilege of bail, if the petitioner is found involved in any other criminal case, the same shall be found as breach of conditions of bail entailing cancellation. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )