IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1205 of 2011 1. Azimul Haque @ Azimul 2. Khursid Mian, both minor sons of Sri Ainul Mian. Resident of village Amethi Kala P.S. Thabe in the district of Gopalganj (under the guardianship of their mother Aisha Khaton) … Petitioners. . Versus The State Of Bihar .. Opp. Party ----------- 3. 16.11.2011 The accused- petitioners have preferred this revision application under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 against the order dated 4th August 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Cr. Appeal No. 28 of 2011 by which the order dated 27.7.2011 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gopalganj in G. R. No. 1424/11 J.E. No. 56/11 arising out of Thawe P. S. Case No. 56 of 2011 under Section 302/34 IPC has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners have been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board thereafter both of them filed petition for grant of bail which was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 27.7.2011. Thereafter, they filed Cr. Appeal 2 No. 28 of 2011 which has been dismissed and the prayer for bail has been refused on the ground that the accused have committed heinous occurrence and there are also grounds for refusing the bail. He has further submitted that due to enmity the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. They have been in custody since 23rd June 2011 and they have no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. They have submitted that due to enmity the only son Pintu of his parents has been killed. There is specific allegation that the accused Azimul Haque caught hold of the deceased and Khursid Mian gave knife blow which caused the death of the deceased due to old enmity. He has further submitted that it appears from the case-diary that there is old enmity between both the parties. The release of the petitioners would not be in the ends of justice nor in favour of the petitioners nor in favour of victim. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the case- diary it appears that the contention of learned 3 counsel for the State is correct. It appears from the case-diary that the release of the petitioner at this stage would not be in the ends of justice. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)