IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.919 of 2010 VIKASH TAMOLI, S/o Vinod Tamoli, R/o Vilalge-Supi, P.S.-Makhdumpur (Tehta), District-Jehanabad. …. Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ….. Opposite Party For the petitioner : Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Chandrasen Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 2 02-07-2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 16-03-2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3/2010, whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 29-01-2010 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in Trial No. 284(J)/09 refusing to release him on bail, has been considered and rejected. Petitioner is facing prosecution under section 302 of the penal code. As per FIR, he is alleged to have fired causing death of the victim. It appears from the record that by order dated 22.01.2010 his claim for being declared as juvenile under the Juvenile Justice(Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, was considered and allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is in custody since 16-10-2009. Learned lower appellate court while considering his appeal has observed as under in Paragraphs 4 and 5: Paragraph-4: “The learned P.P. opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner is the main shooter, who committed murder and further argued that as per the evidence recorded in para 3,12,46,47 of C.D., it appears that he was 2 regularly walking and having relation of harden criminal co-accused Shyam Narain Sharma and further submitted that as per Para 46,47 of the case diary there is evidence that the co-accused wants to develop illicit relation with the deceased and for that purpose the appellant played role as mediator and when she refused and denied to go out side the house, then both having committed the murder with pre-planned way. Paragraph-5 “Considering the submission of both the counsels and perusal of the case diary, it is not a sudden incident but the murder has been committed by pre-planned way, as the evidence came in para 5, 12, of the case diary that earlier many time the appellant came in the house of the deceased and on the date of incident, he also came at her house out take with her, and as per para 46 and 47 he pressurize the victim to go out side the house and developed illicit relation with co-accused Shyam Narayan Sharma and when she refused then the co- accused Shyam Narayan Sharma who was present near by gave a pistol to the appellant who committed offence and from the evidence in para 46, 47 it appears that if the appellant release, he will again fall into association with known criminal co-accused Shyam Narayan Sharma and others. As per the para 62 of the case diary statement of co-accused Shyam Narayan Sharma stated that the appellant also having a illicit relation with the deceased.” This court on a consideration of the materials on record and after hearing both the sides concurs with the view. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly, dismissed. Petitioner is however, granted liberty to apply for his release if the trial is not taken up and concluded within 10(ten) months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the court below. Sujit ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)