IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.137 of 2011 NATULI YADAV @ MUKESH YADAV (MINOR), SON OF LATE HORIL YADAV, UNDER GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS GRAND FATHER NAMELY ISHWAR YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BANJAMA, P.S. JHAJHA, DISTRICT- JAMUI. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Prakash Mahto, Advocate For the State : Mr. M. Haque. APP 2 02.02.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner, who has been declared juvenile in conflict with law, is aggrieved by the appellate order dated 4th November, 2010 passed on Cr. (Juvenile) Appeal No. 36 of 2010 whereby his application seeking release from the jail custody/remand home, has been considered and rejected. As per the prosecution case, a group of thirty (30) persons armed with lethal weapons captivated son of the informant and dragged him along. He made attempts to wriggle out from their captivity but again the said group chased and captivated him. It is the allegation that the group consisted of extremists who were operating under orders of their party High Command who had instructed them to kill the son of the informant who was a suspect informer to the police. It is alleged that one Suresh Yadav fired at informant’s son by pistol whereafter Karu and Satandeo Yadav also indiscriminately resorted to firings on the son of the informant whereafter he fell down and started trembling. The allegation further is that the petitioner and one Sushil cut his neck and head by sharp cutting weapons. The motive for and the manner in which the - 2 - occurrence has been committed prima facie indicate the bent of mind of the petitioner. It appears that the aforesaid prosecution case was supported by several witnesses during investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner does not figure in the case which was said to have been lodged on the basis of information given by the informant and his son. It is next submitted that he is in custody since 26.6.2009. Having regard to the materials on record including the contents of appellate order, this Court is satisfied that his release would defeat the ends of justice and there is every likelihood of petitioner coming in association with anti social elements. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to direct for release of the petitioner. Prayer is refused. However, taking into consideration the fact that he is in custody since 26.6.2009, the Court below shall endeavour to take up and conclude the trial at the earliest. Petitioner is granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not taken up and substantial progress achieved thereat within eight (08) months from the date of receipt of this order. In that event, the Trial Court shall consider his application for bail uninfluenced by the present order. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)