IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1111 of 2009 MD.TAJ @ TAJ BABU, S/o Md. Alim @ Parvez Alam, resident of village- Govindpur Chapra, P.S.-Pear, District- Muzaffarpur. . . . . . . Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Pd. Karn, Advocate For the State : Mr. B.M. Prasad Sinha, A.P.P. ----------- 2/ 16.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner seeks to challenge the appellate order as well as the original order passed under different provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short „the Act‟) whereby his prayer for grant of bail has been refused. Petitioner, as per the First Information Report is the step-son of the deceased. As per the allegation in the First Information Report he along with another co-accused came, scaled the wall and dragged his step-mother out of the house and the next morning the dead body of the deceased was found. First Information Report also indicates that this petitioner consistently threatening the Nana / father of the deceased for allowing the deceased to marry his father for the second time. This court minutely perused the allegations contained in the First Information Report. Petitioner, as noted above, appealed the original order dated 02.04.2009 which was considered by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal No. 58 of 2009 and on consideration of all aspects of the matter the lower appellate court under order dated 16.06.2009 refused to release him on bail. While rejecting his prayer for bail it was held that his release would defeat the ends of justice. - 2 - Court of appeal concluded as under: “Considering the gravity of offence u/ss 302, 201, 120(B) of I.P.C. and also considering that juvenile may come in company of other named accused Bhuttu Mian or other criminals who are alleged to have committed the offence with his connivance and against whom investigation is continued due to their absconding. I am not inclined to grant bail to this accused. Accordingly, bail petition of accused-petitioner Md. Taj @ Taj Babu is hereby rejected”. It is contended that the petitioner is languishing in jail since 26.11.2008. There is no direct evidence against him. Regard being had to the allegation and the materials quoted in support thereof as also the fact that one of the co-accused, who is also related to the petitioner is absconding till date, this court agrees with the view taken by the learned lower appellate court. His application for bail is rejected. This court, however, taking into view that petitioner is in custody since 26.11.2008 observes that let the trial court make all endeavour to conclude the trial itself by examining all the prosecution witnesses within seven (07) months from the date of receipt / communication of a copy of this order, failing which the petitioner is granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself for his release, in the light of different provisions of the Act. In the event, such an application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit uninfluenced by the present order. With this observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) - 3 -