. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1036 of 2009 MULAYAM KUMAR @ MULAYAM SINGH YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh For the State: Mr. Indu Bala Pandey, APP. 2 06.07.2009 Heard both sides. Petitioner calls in question order dated 12.06.2009 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 52 of 2009 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai rejecting his application for grant of bail on the ground that he is Juvenile. While rejecting his application for bail, the learned lower appellate Court observed as under: “Nothing has come on behalf of the appellant to show that on being release it is not likely to bring him into association of any known criminals or expose him to moral and psychological danger” The court has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was facing accusations in connection with dacoity /robbery having been committed on the road in a planned and premeditated manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 16.01.2009. The Juvenile Board has declared him juvenile under dated 28.04.2009. It is further contended that the name of the petitioner transpired in the present case on the basis of the confessional statement made by one of the co accuseds Bumbam Kumar, who has been released 2 on bail by this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the court to the averments made in paragraph no.11 which reads thus: “11.That the petitioner is the first offender and there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner being juvenile may fall in the bad company after the release on bail and in this regard it is important to state that petitioner’s father is Class IV employee in the Railway and he is ready to keep and take care of the petitioner as the petitioner is a bright student of his school.” Having regard to the manner in which the occurrence was committed and subsequently his name figuring as one of the co-accuseds on the basis of materials collected in course of investigation as also the findings recorded by both the courts below, this court, for the present, is not inclined to grant him the privilege of bail. The prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. This court cannot be oblivious of the fact being a juvenile should not act to his prejudice. It has been submitted that the father of the petitioner is prepared to take full responsibilities of the child, if he is released on bail. He shall keep guard against his possible mixing up with the known criminals and shall approach the court for cancellation of bail if it is found by him that the petitioner is not able to mend his ways whereafter the court may cancel the bail bonds. Having regard to the said submissions, this court observes as under: 3 Let the trial court make endeavor to conclude the trial within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the trial court shall release him 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 Chief Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Begusarai, in connection with Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 175 of 2008. In the event the petitioner is granted bail in the light of the present order, the same shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors shall be the father/uncle of the petitioner (ii) The father shall file an appropriate affidavit in the court in the light of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and taken note of by this court regarding the upkeep of the petitioner. Sym/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)