IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1250 of 2010 MURARI KUMAR @ MURARI SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Sandip Singh, Petitioner For the State : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP ----------- 04 24.11.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner claims to have been declared juvenile in conflict with law. He is facing accusations punishable under Sections 364,302,201/34 of the Penal Code. The grand son of the informant was found missing. He was found in association with Jai Prakash Singh, Dayanand Singh and Mukund Singh. Following day the dead body of the grand son was found lying in the nearby school. Investigation revealed implication of the petitioner in the alleged crime. Learned appellate Court has perused the case diary and has observed as under in paragraph no.7:- “Inquest report (C.D. para 3) mentions horrible picture of the dead body of the deceased who according to post mortem report was done to death in callous manner for no strong motive allegedly by appellant and his two alleged guilty associates by strangulation. Case diary para 63 mentions that the appellant has no criminal antecedent from P.S. record of Begusarai and his criminal antecedent has to be obtained from Matihani P.S. and Muffasil P.S. during investigation which is continuing were the possibility of collection of further incriminating materials against the appellant in this case relating to kidnapping and murder of minor boy in a most callous manner by appellant and others. Appellant it appears has no proper legal guardian his father is dead and mother is deaf and dumb for which, he is not under proper guardianship of uncle with 2 possibility of his being put to physical, mental and psychological danger and given bail in such cases, there is every possibility of ends of justice being frustrated for which, impugned order in the opinion of this court can not be said to suffer from illegality.” A report from the concerned Probation officer was called for which is placed on Flag-A. It reveals that petitioner has inclination towards commission of crime. It further appears that the father of the petitioner is dead and mother is deaf and dumb. In that view of the matter, the observation of the learned appellate Court that in the event of his release there is every possibility of petitioner being put to physical, mental and psychological danger cannot be brushed aside. Petitioner seems to be in remand home since 25.03.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the co-accuseds who was not minor has been released on bail and as such he may be released on bail. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail. Having regard to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials brought on record including the two impugned orders, this Court, for the present, is not satisfied that petitioner should be released on bail. Prayer is, accordingly, rejected. However, If the trial itself is not concluded within 08 months from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order in the Court below, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail in the Court 3 below itself which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit uninfluenced by the present order passed by this Court in the present proceeding. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)