IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.920 of 2010 RAVI KUMAR @ RAVI YADAV, S/o Kailu Yadav, R/o Mohalla- Lal Darwaza, P.S.-Kotwali, District- Munger. …. Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 02-07-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the state. Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20-04-2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 37/10 whereby his appeal has been dismissed by the learned appellate court (Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract NO. 1, Munger). Petitioner along with one Rahul Kumar was made accused in a case instituted under sections 302/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 27 of the Arms Act. The case appears to be based on circumstantial evidence. There is no dispute that the petitioner and aforesaid Rahul Kumar were declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. By the impugned order, the appeal preferred by the petitioner and aforesaid Rahul Kumar was considered and rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this court to the order dated 14.06.2010 passed in Criminal Revision No. 835 of 2010 preferred by aforesaid co-accused Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Yadav . With reference to the aforesaid, it is contended that the case of the petitioner is entirely on the same footing. On a perusal of the order dated 14-06-2010 this court finds that he was directed to be released on certain conditions. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present petitioner shall also abide by the conditions imposed in the said order. Resultantly this application is allowed. Petitioner named above, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond 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 father respectively. It shall be the duty of the sureties to ensure that the petitioner is properly representing on each date at the trial and is also physically present on the date when the court below show directs. In absence of their failure to do so, the court below shall be at liberty to 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 in seisin of the case/trial. Let the order be communicated through FAX at the cost of the petitioner. Sujit ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)