IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1111 of 2011 Dhiraj Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar -------------- 02 14.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the State. This is repeat application filed on behalf of the petitioner who has been declared juvenile in conflict with law seeking bail in a case instituted under Section 414/34 of the Penal Code. Earlier petitioner has moved this Court in Cr. Rev. no. 74 of 2011 seeking bail which was considered and rejected with observation under order dated 25.03.2011 (Annexure-1). The operative part of the order dated 25.03.2011 reads as under:- “ Considering the fact that petitioner is in custody/remand home since 01.05.2010 and submission that father of the petitioner would take upon himself all responsibility respecting the petitioner, this Court observes that the petitioner shall have liberty to renew prayer for bail before this Court after five months.” Learned counsel submits that present affidavit has been sworn by the grand-father and he would also stand as a bailor for the petitioner. Considering the observation made in order dated 25.03.2011, and the stand taken by the petitioner as also the fact that petitioner continues to be in the custody/remand home since 01.05.2010, this Court directs release of the petitioner on bail. Let petitioner, named above, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Rohtas 2 at Sasaram in connection with Sasaram ( Agrer) P.S. case no. 402 of 2010, G.R. case no. 1212 of 2010 subject to the following conditions:- (i) The two bailors shall be the father and grand-father of the petitioner (ii) It will be the duty of the father to monitor the conduct of the petitioner and to ensure his physical appearance before the Court as and when required. In case of default in such appearance, the trial Court shall have liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner and secure his arrest in accordance with law.. (iii) During the subsistency of the present privilege, if it is found that petitioner has indulged himself in another criminal case, the same shall be treated as breach of the condition of bail entailing cancellation. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)