IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1815 of 2009 RAJHANSH KUMAR GUPTA @ RAJ HANSH KUMAR GUPTA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 23. 11. 2009. Heard. Informant’s grand son found kidnapped and a report was given to him about his missing. But later, he received information from Raxaul that his grand son was safe and for his release amount would be disclosed next day. Now, some secret information has been received about victim’s presence in a lodge with three boys along with this petitioner, who was recovered. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that material was lacking for making any observation that the release would likely to bring the petitioner with the association of his known criminals which will expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and, as a result, his release would defeat the ends of justice. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after missing of the boy the petitioner remained all along with the informant in search of the boy. There could be some substance in the submission that he remained present while kidnapped boy was being searched. Otherwise, when raid was made in the lodge, room where the kidnapped boy was sleeping was closed from inside. So, there was a little chance of his remaining there while he was on play or accompanying any of 2 the three including this petitioner. He was closely related with the petitioner. Only three conditions are there under which bail to a juvenile can be refused. All the three, according to the Sessions Judge, were present but learned counsel failed to explain how it would not defeat the ends of justice for teenagers involved in such incidents, teenagers if involved in kidnapping for ransom, having link to different places, would not expose moral, physical and psychological danger. Criminal antecedent if was lacking for any of the miscreants involved can be said relevant only for no chance to bring the juvenile into association with any known criminals, doubting which presence of the condition found by the learned Sessions Judge would never be doubted. Thus, I find it is not a case which needs any interference to the conclusion reached by the learned Sessions Judge. This revision is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner is in custody since 3. 3. 2009, so Juvenile Justice Board, Motihari, is directed to expedite the trial of Banjaria P.S. Case No. 30 of 2009. SKBOSE (Mandhata Singh)