Harish Chandra Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P., for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 3.6.2013 passed by learned In -charge, Sessions Judge, Godda, in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2013, whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 21.5.2013 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Godda, in G.R. No. 808 of 2012, rejecting the bail application of the juvenile -petitioner, has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Court below.
(2.) THE petitioner has been made accused in Mahagama P.S. Case No. 90 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 808 of 2012, for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. The case relates to robbery and four persons are named in the F.I.R. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The petitioner, however, was declared to be a juvenile and he filed his application for bail, which was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and the appeal filed against the same was also dismissed by learned Appellate Court below stating that the petitioner was identified in test identification parade. In the facts of this case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner, Deo Kumar Pandit alias Leda Pandit, being a juvenile, on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released 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 Juvenile Justice Board, Godda, in connection with G.R. No. 808 of 2012 arising out of Mahagama P.S. Case No. 90 of 2012, with the condition that one of the bailers should be the father of the petitioner and he shall give an undertaking in the Court below that he shall keep the juvenile -petitioner under his personal care and protection and no repetition of such offence shall be made by the petitioner. This application is accordingly, allowed.;