IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.646 of 2011 Rajeev Kumar @ Rajeev Kumar Singh s/o Surendra Singh r/o vill- Madhurapur (Dakhin – Tola), P.S.- Teghra, District- Begusarai… Petitioner/Revisinist. Versus The State Of Bihar . ----------- 4. 05.07.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice Act against the order dated 10.5.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Appeal No. 46 of 2011 by which the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has misused the bail granted to him Heard Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. It is submitted that the petitioner is an accused in Teghra P.S. Case No. 3 of 1996 for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. The petitioner was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board on 20.3.2011 and he was granted bail. Earlier the case was pending before the Juvenile Justice Board at Munger, later on it was transferred to the Court of Juvenile Justice Board at Begusarai but the petitioner could not know 2 about this fact and the Pairvikar of the petitioner stated that the case has been set at rest and as such he could not make any further attempt to know about the proceeding of the case. Later on, when he came to know that the case is going on at Begusarai, he surrendered in the Court of Juvenile Justice on 29.3.2011 and since then he has been in custody. It is further submitted that petitioner will regularly attend the court and his father will look after him and the petitioner will not indulge himself in similar or any other offence. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish a cash surety of Rs.5000/-. It is also submitted that there is no material on the record to show that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the State submits that it is a case of misuse of bail and the petitioner has absconded for about three years and due to his absence the case has been pending. Considering the facts and circumstances, it 3 appears that the petitioner was earlier granted bail but due to some mistake he could not appear in the Court at Begusarai and earlier the case was pending before the Juvenile Justice Board, Munger. It is an admitted fact that when the petitioner came to know about the proceeding at Juvenile Justice Board at Begusarai, he surrendered in the Court on 29th March 2011 and since then he has been in custody. Due to absence of the petitioner no progress has been made in the case for the last three years. There is no material on the record to show that the release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion the impugned order is not fit to be sustained; it is, accordingly, set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a cash surety of Rs.5000/- and bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Begusarai in connection with Teghra P S. Case No. 3 of 1996, subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the father of the petitioner who shall produce the petitioner each 4 and every date in the Court. It is made clear that the petitioner will not indulge himself in similar or any other offence and in case of violation of any of the terms of bail bond, the cash surety will be forfeited and his bail bond will be liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Board. In the result, this cri. revision petition is allowed. kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)