IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.425 of 2008 TRILOKI KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3 14.08.2008 The order dated 15th February 2008 is of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, F.T.C.II, Lakhisarai as passed in Cr.Alppeal No. 151 of 2007 whereby the order of the Juvenile Justice Board refusing bail to the petitioner, who happens to be a Juvenile in conflict with law and who is facing trial before the Board for the offence under Sections 395 and 412 I.P.C. has been confirmed. Petitioner is said to have been apprehended while fleeing away with looted brief case containing articles of passengers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2000, bail to a Juvenile can be refused only on the ground that the release is likely to bring him in the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Further submission of the learned counsel is that the learned Sessions Judge has not given any specific finding in his order, while confirming the bail rejection order of the Juvenile Justice Board. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 13th September 2004 i.e. nearly four years after the occurrence and the trial before the court has not even commenced after submission of the charge-sheet against the petitioner. Thus hearing and considering the facts and circumstances of 2 the case, I do not find it a case wherein the release is likely to bring the petitioner in association with any known criminal or to expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger or that it would defeat the ends of justice. Under the circumstances, petitioner Triloki Kumar is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.8,000/- (eight thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhisarai in G.R.No.157 of 2004, arising out of G.R.P.S.Case No. 77 of 2004, subject to the condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner must be his father. Jay/ (C.M.Prasad,J)