IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.835 of 2010 RAHUL KUMAR @ RAHUL YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 14.6.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasizes that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The petitioner is a juvenile in the remand home since 12.5.2009. Counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail urging that it is a case of double murder. In absence of any discussion in the impugned order suggestive of the petitioner being assailant in view of his being a juvenile, the environment to which he shall be exposed, this Court does not consider it prudent to direct continued custody. Considering the period of custody undergone, let the petitioner above named be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Munger in connection with Muffasil P. S. Case No. 121 of 2009/ G.R. No. 853A of 2009. Both the sureties must be his mother and 2 father respectively. It shall be the duty of the sureties to ensure that the petitioner is properly represented on each date in the trial and is also physically present on the dates that the Court below so directs. In absence of their failure to do so, the Court will be at liberty to also proceed against the sureties if the circumstances so warrant. Should the petitioner be involved in any criminal case during the present trial, it shall be a clear case of misuse of the privilege of bail, reading the present bail liable to cancellation by the Court below itself. Let the order be communicated through FAX at the cost of the petitioner. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)