IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1782 of 2010 RABBU KHAN . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 02 03.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is declared juvenile in conflict with law. He is facing accusations punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code. As per allegation in the F.I.R., the petitioner along with 3-4 associates arrived at the betel shop of the deceased and demanded betel/cigarettes. On refusal he was abused left and right and thereafter it is alleged that the petitioner took out his country made pistol and fired at the deceased, as a result whereof, he dropped dead at the shop itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having been declared juvenile is entitled to bail in view of the provision contained under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act 2000. It is next submitted that petitioner is in remand home/ custody for more than a year. This Court finds from the appellate order that the allegations so levelled against the petitioner found support from the materials collected in course of investigation. It is further seen that the report of the Probation Officer was called for and the findings recorded therein were taken into consideration while 2 considering his prayer for bail. Learned appellate Court has recorded as under in paragraph no.7:- “7. Although it was argued that the delinquent has no criminal association and this fact has not been considered by the Juvenile Court. The report of Probation Officer is on record and it appears that Probation Officer has found that the delinquent is rude and tendency of fleeing from the house. He has no good relation with other children of school. Villagers have asked that the delinquent is of criminal tendency and has no good conduct. The probation officer is of the view that he cannot be given privilege of Probation Act. ” Considering the allegation and the fact that the petitioner was found in company with several accuseds and the manner in which the occurrence was committed and also keeping in view the findings of the appellate Court as recorded in paragraph no.7, this Court is of the view that the release of the petitioner at this stage would defeat the ends of justice. There is no merit in this application. The application is dismissed. However, having regard to the period of custody, this Court observes that if the trial of the case is not concluded by examining all the prosecution witnesses within a year from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order in the Court below, the petitioner shall have liberty to renew prayer for bail before the Court below itself and the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law uninfluenced by the present order. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)