IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.577 of 2010 PINTU KUMAR @ VIKRAM KUMAR S/O VIJAY YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR For the petitioner : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, Advocate. For the O.P. : Mr. Virendra Kumar Rai, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 04. 23.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and the State. Petitioner is declared juvenile. He is an accused in a case instituted under Sections 364A,302 and 201 of the Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner. It is next contended that he has passed matriculation and is presently student of Intermediate Science. It also appears from the record that he is in remand home since 23.01.2010. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that the case diary is replete with the materials indicating the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. He referred to paragraph nos. 15,19,36,39 and 66 of the case diaries. It is the stand of the State that three to four accuseds conspired to abduct and kill the deceased for want of ransom. Learned appellate Court on a consideration of the materials rejecting the application observed as under:- “…Under the above facts and circumstances and also after considering the fact that the release of the appellant Pintu Kumar on bail shall likely to bring him into association with any criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or 2 that his release on bail would defeat the ends of justice. I am not inclined to release the aforesaid appellant Pintu Kumar allias Vikram Kumar on bail. Accordingly the prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant Pintu Kumar allias Vikram Kumar is hereby rejected.” Having regard to the manner in which the deceased was done to death and the role which appears to have been assigned to the petitioner in the crime, this Court is satisfied that for the reasons recorded by learned appellate Court, prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioner should be refused. Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected. Considering the fact that he is in remand home since 23.01.2010, this Court grants him liberty to approach the Court below for bail after six months in case all the prosecution evidence is/are not examined within the aforesaid time. In case petitioner files such an application the same shall be considered and disposed of on merit uninfluenced by the present order. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)