IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1559 of 2010 PRINCE KUMAR @ PINISH KUMAR S/O RAMESHWAR MAHTO Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 01.12.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner, who has been declared juvenile in conflict with law and facing charge punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code in which two persons lost their lives, prays for grant of bail. It is stated that he is in remand home since 30.01.2009. It is next contended that some of the co-accuseds who were not juvenile have since been released on bail by different Benches of this Court. It is further submitted that mother of the petitioner has taken upon herself the responsibility respecting the petitioner. From the order dated 3rd June, 2010 passed on his appeal being Cr. Appeal no. 56 of 2010 it appears that the petitioner is involved in as many as four cases triable by Sessions Court. Learned lower appellate Court has noticed in para 6 of the impugned order that having regard to the aforesaid fact and the manner in which the present occurrence is said to have been committed refusal of the bail would be in accordance with the exception carved out under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act. In my view, petitioner does not deserve bail at this stage. The view taken by learned lower appellate Court seems to be reasonable. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, this Court 2 declines to release the petitioner on bail. Prayer for bail is rejected. However, keeping in view, the fact that petitioner is in remand home for nearly two years by now, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the Principal Magistrate for his release on bail after six months if the trial does not register substantial progress. In that event learned Board shall consider his application in accordance with law uninfluenced by the present order passed by this Court. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)