IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.58 of 2010 RAVI KUMAR @ RAVI YADAV @ RAVI YADAV, SON OF KAILU YADAV, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA LAL DARWAZA, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICTMUNGER. . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 3/ 19.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl.P.P. for the State. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was seen with Vidyanand Yadav, his son Rakesh Kumar Yadav and co-accused Rahul Yadav. Differences were on the point of solemnizing of marriage of Jitendra Yadav, deceased, with the daughter of Vidyanand Yadav but allegation against this petitioner and co-accused Rahul Yadav is that they came to the deceased house and agreed to take tempo of the informant on hire and his one friend Harish Chandra Prasad also sat on the deceased’s tempo for its destination but in the morning dead body of both were recovered. His tempo was found abandoned brought to the police station so it is not a case of suspicion only, rather a circumstance involving the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there appears lack of evidence about chance of petitioner coming in association with known criminals but the way in which murder was committed, petitioner having his hand appears to defeat the ends of justice and further - 2 - there is chance of his exposure to moral physical and psychological danger. This angle has not been considered nor discussed so it appears fresh application of the mind by the Juvenile Board further if really there appears chance about coming of the petitioner with the association with known criminal , the materials should be clearly mentioned at list paragraphs in absence of which conclusion by juvenile justice Board or by Sessions Judge is not liable to be sustained. According, the order dated 19.12.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. I, Munger and order dated 17.11.2009, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Munger in Muffasil P.S. Case No. 121 of 2009, G.R. No. 853 of 2009, are hereby set aside and the case is remitted back to the Juvenile Justice Board, Munger to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed. Let this order be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioner, as prayed for. ( Mandhata Singh, J ) BTiwary/