IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1681 of 2010 ANIL KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR YADAV S/O- GANESHI YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 23.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No body appears on behalf of the State. Petitioner is juvenile in conflict with law. He is facing charge punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Petitioner is in custody/remand home since 20.8.2009. Referring to different statements recorded in the case diary, it is submitted that he was found at home when the witnesses as well as the police went in search of the petitioner. Referring to paragraph 67 of the case diary, it is contended that there is no criminal antecedent of the petitioner. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner has undertaken to monitor the petitioner in case he is released on bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, while setting aside the impugned order, directs for release of petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Supaul in connection with G.R. case No. 924 of 2009, Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 126 of 2009 subject to the following conditions: 2 (i) The father of the petitioner shall stand as one of the bailors. (ii) It shall be the duty of the father to watch the conduct of the petitioner and to produce him in Court as and when directed for physical appearance. In case of default in such appearance, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner and secure his arrest. (iii) During the subsistency of the present privilege of bail, if it is found that the petitioner is found involved in any other criminal case, the same shall be treated as a breach of condition of bail entailing cancellation. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)